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

CACV 100/2026, [2026] HKCA 596

On Appeal from [2026] HKCFI 86

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 100 OF 2026

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 1294 OF 2020)

________________________

_____________________

_____________________

JUDGMENT

_____________________

Hon H. Au-Yeung J (giving the Judgment of the Court):

1.  This is the applicant’s appeal against the order of Deputy High Court Judge (Non-refoulement Claims) YW Hew (“the Judge”) dated 28 January 2026 by which his application for leave to apply for judicial review (“the Leave Application”) against the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board (“the Board”) dated 25 May 2020 (“the Board’s Decision”) was dismissed. By that decision, the Board upheld the decision of the Director of Immigration (“the Director”) rejecting the applicant's non-refoulement claim.

2.  The applicant is a national of India.  The basis of his non-refoulement claim had been set out in detail in the Board’s Decision, which may be viewed online via the hyperlink contained in footnote 1 of the CALL-1 Form.  In gist, the Applicant claims that if he returns home, he will be harmed or killed by his creditor.

3.  In [9] to [14] of the CALL-1 Form, the Judge gave detailed reasons for refusing the Leave Application.

4.  By a Notice of Appeal filed on 5 February 2026, the applicant appeals against the Judge’s decision.  The applicant contends that:

“I am disagree with the decision maker authorities. Decision maker not proper investigation in my claim, they make decision same like Torture Claim Appeal Board / Director of Immigration. Since they not give me justice. I don't think my case determined fairly.”

5.  In his Skeleton Argument lodged on 12 March 2026, the applicant submits, among other things, that:

(1)     The Director and the Board wrongly assessed his non-refoulement claim and their decisions were not reasonable or fair under the Wednesbury test;

(2)     The applicant’s right to life under the Basic Law and the Bill of Rights must be protected from the extrajudicial killings he may face if deported;

(3)     The quick disposal of non-refoulement cases by the authorities was discriminatory and unacceptable;

(4)     The Director failed to give proper weight to state acquiescence in the applicant’s case, rendering the decisions unfair and void;

(5)     The Board placed excessive reliance on Country of Origin (“COI”) materials while failing to consider the applicant’s personal background and experience; and

(6)     The Board’s dismissal of the appeal was irrational.

6.  At the hearing, the applicant submitted, among other things, that:

(1)     the Adjudicator had incorrectly stated in the Board’s Decision the type of visa which he held when he entered into Hong Kong;

(2)     the Board did not pay sufficient attention to an injury to his right little finger;

(3)     his friend who had returned to India from Portugal had been murdered;

(4)     his mother and grandmother had been attacked in India and as a result lost their lives;

(5)     his family had disowned him in 2008 and he had nowhere to return to back in India;

(6)     his house had been demolished by his enemy;

(7)     he might be murdered if he returns to India.

7.  At the hearing, he had also handed up 3 documents, so as to support his case that:

(1)     her mother had passed away;

(2)     he had been disowned by his family[1]; and

(3)     his house had been demolished.

8.  The general approach of this Court in dealing with appeals in non-refoulement cases has been set out in Nupur Mst v Director of Immigration [2018] HKCA 524 at [14].  In particular, in an appeal against refusal of leave to apply for judicial review in non-refoulement cases, this Court 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.  This Court’s role is not to examine the Board’s decision afresh as if it is a fresh application for judicial review (see Nupur Mst at [14(6)]).

9.  Further, the assessment of evidence, COI, 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 is an error of law or procedural unfairness or irrationality in the decision of the Board: Re Kartini [2019] HKCA 1022 at [13].

10.  In respect of the grounds of appeal, we note that all of them are concerned with alleged errors made by the Board and the Director, and not with any error of the Judge.  Further, these grounds were never raised in the Form 86, the affirmation filed in support of the Form 86 or the oral hearing before the Judge (see [9] and [13] of the CALL-1 Form).  It is impermissible for the applicant to raise fact-sensitive issue for the first time on appeal.  In the premises, the applicant has failed to advance any viable ground of appeal.

11.  As for the documents handed up at the hearing (see [7] above), the applicant has not applied for leave to adduce new evidence in this appeal.  Therefore, he is not entitled to rely on any new evidence.  In any event, even if the court were to consider the new evidence on a de bene essebasis, those documents would not assist his appeal.

12.  For the above reasons, the appeal is without merit.  We therefore dismiss the appeal with no order as to costs.

[1] It was written in a foreign language and unaccompanied by English translation