AMIT KUMAR v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

CACV 532/2025, [2026] HKCA 119

On appeal from [2025] HKCFI 2863

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 532 OF 2025

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO. 803 OF 2020)

__________________________

__________________________

________________

JUDGMENT

________________

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”) given in the CALL-1 Form dated 10 July 2025 ^[1] refusing his application for leave to apply for judicial review against the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board (the “Board”) dated 22 April 2020 (the “ Board’s Decision”) whereby the Board dismissed his appeal against the decision of the Director of Immigration (the “ Director”) dated 25 May 2018 (the “ Director’s Decision”) and rejecting his non‑refoulement protection claim. 

The applicant’s claimand the Judge’s decision

2.  The applicant is a national of India. In his non-refoulement claim form filed with the Immigration Department dated 25 April 2018, he lodged a claim on the basis that, if refouled, he would be harmed or killed by Gurdayal Singh of the Bharatiya Janata Party (“BJP”) or its members over the land owned by the applicant’s family.  The applicant’s non-refoulement claim was rejected by the Director, and his appeal against it was rejected by the Board on 22 April 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, the hyperlink to which can be found in the CALL-1 Form.

3.  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 CALL-1 Form.

The appeal

4.  By a notice of appeal filed on 22 July 2025, the applicant sought to appeal the Judge’s decision to this court.  For the grounds of appeal, the applicant stated that “I am disagree with the decision maker authorities. The decision made by the Director of Immigration, as well as the decision made by the Adjudicator of the Torture Claim Appeal Board. There is no proper investigation in my claim. My life still in danger in my home land. (sic)”, but without providing any particular or elaboration. 

5.  The appeal was heard on 29 January 2026.  The applicant attended the hearing in person with the assistance of a Hindi interpreter and had nothing to add.

6.  In the applicant’s skeleton argument lodged on 22 December 2025, he argued that :

(1)     the Director had failed to appreciate or give proper importance or weight to the presence of state acquiescence in his case;

(2)     the Board acted unreasonably and was procedurally unfair by placing too much reliance on the Country of Origin information (“COI”) but failed to take into account his personal background and experience;

(3)     the Director failed to consider or place sufficient weight on his COI which supported the aversions that the police in his country would not be able to protect.

7.  Apart from his argument above, the applicant did not identify any error made by the Judge in dismissing his application for leave to apply for judicial review.

Our reasons for decision

8.  The Court of Appeal’s general approach in dealing with appeals in non-refoulement cases is 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, 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 is a fresh application for judicial review (see Nupur Mst, at §14(6)).

9.  Further, 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 is an error of law or procedural unfairness or irrationality in the decision of the Board: Re Kartini [2019] HKCA 1022.  In the present case, no such error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the decision of the Board was observed by the Judge.

10.  It is incumbent on the applicant to point out the Judge’s errors with sufficient particulars.  We are of the view that the matters set out in the notice of appeal or his skeleton argument 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.

^[1] [2025] HKCFI 2863