SYED SULTHAN MOHAMED THASTHAGEER v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

CACV 790/2025, [2026] HKCA 547

On appeal from [2025] HKCFI 4158

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 790 OF 2025

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 757 OF 2020)

__________________________

__________________________

________________

J U D G M E N T

________________

The Court:

INTRODUCTION

1.  This is the applicant’s appeal against the order of Deputy High Court Judge (Non-refoulement Claims) YW Hew (“the Judge”) dated 16 September 2025[1] refusing his application for leave to apply for judicial review against the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office (“the Board”) dated 11 March 2020 (“the 2^nd Board’s Decision”) whereby the Board dismissed his appeal against the decision of the Director of Immigration (“the Director”) dated 10 May 2017 (“the 2^nd Director’s Decision”) and rejecting his non‑refoulement protection claim. These decisions concern only the BOR 2 risk of the applicant’s claim. 

2.  The Director has rejected the applicant’s claim under BOR 3, torture risk and persecution risk in his decision dated 8 August 2014 (“the 1^st Director’s Decision”) and the applicant’s appeal against it was rejected by a Board’s decision dated 21 March 2017 (“the 1^st Board’s Decision”). However, these were not raised or included in the applicant’s first instance application. [2]

BACKGROUND

3.  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 due to a religious and class conflict stemming from his love and marriage to a woman of a different religion and caste. The applicant’s non-refoulement claim was rejected by the 1^st Director’s Decision and the 2^nd Director’s Decision, and his appeals against them were rejected by the 1^st Board’s Decision and the 2^nd Board’s Decision respectively. Details of the applicant’s claim and the Board’s reasons for rejecting the applicant’s appeals can be found in the Board’s Decision, the hyperlinks[3] to which can be found in the Form CALL-1 dated 16 September 2025 (“the Form CALL-1”).   

4.  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

5.  By a notice of appeal filed on 25 September 2025, the applicant sought to appeal the Judge’s decision to this court. For the grounds of appeal, the applicant stated that (sic) “I am writing this grounds regarding my judicial review application was dismissed by high court after oral hearing. Although I submit my supporting documents, but I have problem in my country. I will explain in my oral hearing properly.” 

6.  In the applicant’s skeleton submissions lodged on 5 February 2026, he reiterated his claim and that his life would be at risk if refouled and that he would be tortured or killed his enemies. He asserted that :-

a.  the Judge failed to apply the principles of rationality, procedural unfairness and high standards of fairness, and also failed to analyse his claims properly;

b.  the Board failed to give him sufficient chance to arrange for the relevant evidence and failed to evaluate whether a consistent pattern of gross and mass violation of human rights in his home country;

c.  the Board relied on source of news which is not officially recognised or was simply hearsay;

d.  the Board failed to analyse and assess the issue of state protection in his home country.

7.  At the hearing on 12 March 2026, the applicant reiterated that his life is still under threat and asked the Court to provide him protection.

DISCUSSION & DISPOSITION

8.  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)).

9.  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.

10.  In the present case, the Judge found no error of law or procedural unfairness or irrationality in the decision of the Board. It is incumbent on the applicant to point out the Judge's errors with sufficient particulars and specifics. In our view, the matters set out in the applicant’s notice of appeal and written submissions failed to identify any error on the part of the Judge. Mere assertions are not enough. They do not constitute any viable grounds of appeal and lack substance. We see no basis to interfere with the Judge’s decision.

11.  For the above reasons, the applicant’s appeal is devoid of merits. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal.