RANBIR SINGH v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

CACV 297/2025, [2026] HKCA 798

On appeal from [2025] HKCFI 1625

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 297 OF 2025

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 3858 OF 2019)

__________________________

BETWEEN

__________________________

________________

JUDGMENT

________________

The Court:

INTRODUCTION

1.  This is the applicant’s appeal against the order of Deputy High Court Judge (Non-refoulement Claims) Martin Wong (“the Judge”) dated 12 May 2025, [1]refusing to grant leave to apply for judicial review of the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office (“the Board”) dated 5 December 2019 (“the Board’s Decision”) whereby the Board dismissed his appeal against the decision of the Director of Immigration (“the Director”) dated 16 October 2018 (“the Director’s Decision”).

BCAKGROUND

2.  The applicant is a national of India. He lodged a non-refoulement claim with the Immigration Department on the basis that, if refouled, he would be harmed or killed by his girlfriend’s family if he is returned as they do not approve of the relationship on religious ground. The applicant’s non-refoulement claim was rejected by the Director, and his appeal against it was rejected by the Board. Details of the applicant’s claim and the Board’s reasons for rejecting the applicant’s appeal can be found in the Board’s Decision, the hyperlink to which can be found in the Form CALL-1 dated 12 May 2025 (“the Form CALL-1”).

3.  The applicant’s application for leave to apply for judicial review was refused by the Judge and details of the Judge’s reasons for refusing to grant leave can be found in the Form CALL-1.

GROUNDS OF APPEAL

4.  By a notice of appeal filed on 16 May 2025, the applicant sought to appeal the Judge’s decision to this court, and his grounds of appeal can be summarised as follows :-

1) the applicant was self-represented and was given adequate opportunities to present his case, but he was disadvantaged in comparison to represented litigants;

2) the applicant was not able to read or write English and was not provided with any language or legal assistance which was unfair to him, and as a result he was not able to satisfy the authorities in his process and to elaborate on any grounds during the application for judicial review;

3) the Judge failed to acknowledge, give any weight to, and neglected the applicant’s individual circumstances and difficulties and displayed unfairness;

4) The Judge and the Board overlooked and did not adequately consider his fear of life which is a critical aspect of his situation, and therefore the validity of Board’s decision of the availability of internal relocation was undermined, irrational and unjust;

5) It is procedurally unfair that there are no other avenues for a non-refoulement claimant to seek an appeal against a decision purely against credibility, and it is a legal error;

6) The applicant was not provided with an interpreter to understand the Board’s decision, and a court hearing should have been held so that he could explain the errors in the Board’s Decision.

5.  The appeal was scheduled to be heard on 11 March 2026. The applicant has failed to lodge any skeleton argument in support of his appeal in accordance with the directions given by the Registrar of Civil Appeals on 15 January 2026. Accordingly, the applicant is deemed to have waived his right to have an oral hearing of the appeal, and elected to have the appeal disposed of on paper. The applicant was informed of the same by the court’s letter dated 12 February 2026.

DISCUSSION & DISPOSITION

6.  In an appeal against refusal of leave to apply for judicial review in non-refoulement cases, the Court of Appeal would only examine the decision of the judge in light of the grounds advanced by the applicant. If no viable ground is put forward to reverse the judge’s decision, the appeal should be dismissed. The Court of Appeal’s role is not to examine the Board’s decision afresh as if it was a fresh application for judicial review (see Nupur Mst v Director of Immigration [2018] HKCA 524, at §14(6)).

7.  The assessment of evidence, country of origin information, risk of harm, state protection and viability of internal relocation are primarily within the province of the Board and the Director. The court will not intervene by way of judicial review unless there are errors of law or procedural unfairness or irrationality in the decision of the Board: Re Kartini [2019] HKCA 1022.

8.  The applicant’s present complaint about the lack of legal and language assistance was not raised in his application below. He is not entitled to raise it for the first time before us. In any event, it has no merit.

9.  The applicant was assisted by his solicitors in relation to the assessment of his non-refoulement claim by the Director, and clearly had legal and language assistance at that stage. It is well-established that a non-refoulement claimant is not entitled to free legal representation or language assistance at all stages of the assessment of his non-refoulement claim. In this regard, we note that the applicant’s Form 86 and the supporting affirmation filed in the court below, as well as his Notice of Appeal filed with this Court are all written in English. This indicates that the Applicant is either conversant with English, or has access to language assistance. Further, the applicant has failed to show that he was inhibited from advancing any particular point or ground before the Board or the Judge by reason of the lack of legal or language assistance.

10.  The other complaints raised by the Applicant are all bare assertions without particulars, and cannot constitute valid grounds of appeal against the Judge’s decision.

11.  For the above reasons, the applicant’s appeal is devoid of merits. We dismiss it accordingly.