ANGBO PREM KUMAR v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD

CACV 299/2025, [2026] HKCA 799

On Appeal From [2025] HKCFI 1833

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 299 OF 2025

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 2224 OF 2019)

________________________

BETWEEN

_____________________

_____________________

JUDGMENT

_____________________

The Court:

INTRODUCTION

1.  This is the Applicant’s appeal against the order of Deputy High Court Judge Bruno Chan (“the Judge”) dated 8 May 2025, 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 17 April 2019 (“the Board’s Decision”).

BACKGROUND

2.  The Applicant is a national of Nepal. On 11 April 2017, the Applicant lodged a non-refoulement claim on the basis that, if refouled, he would be harmed or killed by certain local supporters of the political party Madhesi Forum as he supported their rival Nepal Communist Party.[1] The Applicant’s claim was rejected by the Director of Immigration (“the Director”) on 10 July 2018, and the appeal against the Director’s decision was rejected by the Board on 17 April 2019. Details of the Applicant’s claim and the Board’s reasons for rejecting the Applicant’s appeal can be found in the Form CALL-1 dated 8 May 2025.[2]

3.  The Applicant’s application for leave to apply for judicial review was refused by the Judge on 8 May 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 19 May 2025, the Applicant states that:

“I am not agree with the decision of the Court of First Instance because this decision make me liable to go back to my home country where my life is not safe and if I return back there I will be killed by my enemies. The learned Judge did not scrutinize my claim properly. The decision is maded simply.” (sic)

5.  The Applicant has failed to lodge written submissions in support of the appeal in accordance with the directions given by the Registrar of Civil Appeals on 16 January 2026.[3] Accordingly, the Applicant is deemed to have waived the right to have an oral hearing of the appeal and elected to have the appeal disposed of on paper. Having considered the documents before us, we consider that it is appropriate to deal with the Applicant’s appeal on paper without an oral hearing.

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 matters raised in the Applicant’s Notice of Appeal are all general allegations without particulars. They do not constitute any valid grounds of appeal against the Judge’s decision. The Applicant’s appeal has no merit, and is dismissed.