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

CACV 530/2025, [2026] HKCA 124

On Appeal From [2025] HKCFI 3034

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 530 OF 2025

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 780 OF 2020)

________________________

_____________________

________________________

JUDGMENT

________________________

The Court:

INTRODUCTION

1.  This is the Applicant’s appeal against the order of DHCJ (Non-refoulement Claims) Lewis Law (“the Judge”) dated 16 July 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 13 March 2020 (“the Board’s Decision”).

BACKGROUND

2.  The Applicant is a national of India.  On 11 July 2018, the Applicant lodged a non-refoulement claim on the basis that, if refouled, he would be harmed or killed by a man named Sukhwinder Singh Goldy due to political differences.  The Applicant’s non-refoulement claim was rejected by the Director of Immigration (“the Director”) on8 August 2018, and the appeal against the Director’s decision was rejected by the Board on 13 March 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 dated 16 July 2025. 

3.  The Applicant’s application for leave to apply for judicial review was refused by the Judge on 16 July 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 22 July 2025, the Applicant states the following that:

“I am not agree with the decision of the Court of First Instance because this decision is unfair and it make me liable to remove from Hong Kong to a risk state in my home country where my life is not safe.” (sic)

5.  In the written submission filed on 23 December 2025, the Applicant essentially argues that he did not go back to his home country because his life would be in danger there, that he is disappointed at the Board’s Decision, that he wants to appeal to the Court of Appeal with information in his possession, and that he requests the Court of Appeal to reconsider his leave application because his enemies are waiting for him to be “harmed or killed”.

LEGAL PRINCIPLES

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 below 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.  

DISCUSSION & DISPOSITION

8.  The matters raised in the Applicant’s Notice of Appeal and written submission are all general allegations without particulars.  They do not constitute any valid grounds of appeal against the Order.

9.  The Applicant has failed to identify or show any error in the Judge’s decision refusing to grant leave to apply for judicial review, or raise any viable ground of appeal against the Order. 

10.  The Applicant’s appeal has no merit, and is dismissed.