KIRANDEEP RAM v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

CACV 339/2025, [2026] HKCA 335

On appeal from [2025] HKCFI 1914

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 339 OF 2025

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO. 184 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) Teresa Wu (“the Judge”) dated 13 May 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 3 September 2018 (“the Board’s Decision”) whereby the Board dismissed his appeal against the decision of the Director of Immigration (“the Director”) dated 27 February 2018 (“the Director’s Decision”).

BACKGROUND

2.  The applicant claims to be a national of India. His non-refoulement claim was put on the basis that, if refouled, he would be harmed or killed by his late girlfriend’s family because she committed suicide after their marriage was refused by her family. The applicant’s non-refoulement claim was rejected by the Director, and the 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.

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

GROUNDS OF APPEAL

4.  By a notice of appeal filed on 27 May 2025, the applicant sought to appeal the Judge’s decision to this court. For the grounds of appeal, the applicant stated that “I don’t agree with the decision. Please consider my Application. I want to prove to Court of Appeal that my case is real. Thank you.”

5.  In the applicant’s written submission lodged on 20 January 2026, he states that:

“My name is Kirandeep Ram from India. Arrived in Hong Kong on 29 April 2013. Was refused permission to enter. I lodges a torture claims petition to Director of Immigration and transferred to to a Immigration detention centre. On 2^nd Auguest 2023 Director of Immigration issued a Notice of decision agains me refusing my claims. Appeal agains the Notice of decision at Torture Claims appeal Board. Few months later without hearing the adjudicator dismissed my claims. From my friends I submitted a leave Application to the court of first instance. On 13 September 2025 the Judge refused my application. I lodged my Notice of Appeal to the court of appeal on 22 Dec 2025.

I have more informations to tell court to prove and support my Application. Im pleading to the Judges to review my application.”

6.  The appeal was heard on 24 February 2026. The applicant attended the hearing in person with the assistance of a Hindi interpreter and added that he had a girlfriend and child in Hong Kong.

LEGAL PRINCIPLES

7.  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)).

8.  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

9.  In the present case, no error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the decision of the Board was detected by the Judge or was pointed out by the applicant apart from the bare assertions stated in his grounds of appeal and in his written submission.

10.  It is incumbent on the applicant to point out the Judge's errors with sufficient particulars. In our view, the matters set out in the applicant’s notice of appeal and written submission failed to identify any error on the part of the Judge. 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.