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

CACV 531/2025, [2026] HKCA 255

On Appeal From [2025] HKCFI 3023

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 531 OF 2025

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 711 OF 2020)

________________________

_____________________

_______________

J U D G M E N T

_______________

The Court:

INTRODUCTION

1.  This is the Applicant’s appeal against the order of DHCJ (non-refoulement Claims) YW Hew (“the Judge”) dated 17 July 2025 (“the Order”) 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 26 March 2020 (“the Board’s Decision”). As the Applicant was removed from Hong Kong in November 2025, we will deal with this appeal on paper.

BACKGROUND

2.  The Applicant is a national of India. The Applicant lodged a non-refoulement claim on the basis that, if refouled, he would be harmed or killed by family members of his girlfriend “Karen”. The Applicant’s non-refoulement claim was rejected by the Director of Immigration (“the Director”) on 14 May 2018, and the appeal against the Director’s decision was rejected by the Board on 26 March 2020. 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.

3.  The Applicant’s application for leave to apply for judicial review was refused by the Judge on 17 July 2025. Details of the Judge’s reasons for refusing to grant leave can be found in the CALL-1 Form.

GROUNDS OF APPEAL

4.  In the Notice of Appeal filed on 22 July 2025, the Applicant principally complained of the absence of language and legal assistance being provided to him. The Applicant also complained that the court “should have held a hearing” in order for him to “explain errors” in the Board’s Decision.

LEGAL PRINCIPLES

5.  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)).

6.  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 below will not intervene by way of judicial review unless there are errors of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the decision of the Board: Re Kartini [2019] HKCA 1022.

DISCUSSION & DISPOSITION

7.  We are unpersuaded by the Applicant’s complaint of lack of legal and language assistance. As a matter of law, a non-refoulement claimant is not entitled to free legal representation at all stages of the process, and the high standard of fairness required by law would not entail an interpretation service to be made available at any time as the applicant desired. See Re Gurnishan Singh [2018] HKCA 704 at §§11 and 13. It is further noted that the Applicant was able to, either by himself or with assistance from others, lodge with the court applications written in comprehensible English.

8.  The Applicant has failed to identify or show any error in the Judge’s decision refusing to grant leave to apply for judicial review, or raise any viable ground of appeal against the Order.

9.  The Applicant’s appeal has no merit, and is dismissed.