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

CACV 500/2025, [2026] HKCA 259

On appeal from [2025] HKCFI 2856

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 500 OF 2025

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO. 927 OF 2020)

__________________________

__________________________

________________

J U D G M E N T

________________

The Court:

Introduction

1.  This is the applicant’s appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge Michael Wong (“the Judge”) given in the Form CALL-1 and the Order dated 8 July 2025 refusing to extend time for his application to apply for leave to apply for judicial review against the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board (the “Board”) dated 3 March 2016 (the “Board’s Decision”) whereby the Board dismissed his appeal against the decision of the Director of Immigration (the “Director”) dated 23 December 2014 (the “Director’s Decision”) and rejected his non‑refoulement protection claim. 

The applicant’s claim and the Judge’s decision

2.  The applicant is a national of India. He lodged a non-refoulement claim with the Immigration Department on the basis that, he had been beaten by four policemen in 1998, who forced him to confess that he had killed two persons in a traffic case, although he was not the driver. He feared that, if refouled, he would be killed by the relatives of the two persons who had died in that traffic case. The applicant’s non-refoulement claim was rejected by the Director, and his appeal against it was rejected by the Board on 3 March 2016. 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 and details of the Judge’s reasons for refusing to grant leave can be found in the Form CALL-1.      

The appeal

4.  By a notice of appeal filed on 15 July 2025, the applicant sought to appeal the Judge’s decision to this court. For the grounds of appeal, the applicant stated that “the grounds of this appeal are that the Applicant will face hardship if he is return back to his home country and that the Torture Claims Appeal Board has significantly relied on the source of news which is not officially recognized, or it is simply hearsay. They have also relied on some cases which are outdated considering the dramatic changes. The lack of credible source of information has resulted in them making groundless speculations.”, but without providing further particulars or elaboration.

5.  The appeal was scheduled to be heard on 29 January 2026. The applicant has failed to lodge any skeleton argument in support of his appeal. Accordingly, the applicant is deemed to have waived his right to have an oral hearing of the appeal, and elected to have the appeal disposed of on paper. The applicant was informed of the same by a court’s letter.

Our reasons for decision

6.  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)).

7.  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, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the decision of the Board: Re Kartini [2019] HKCA 1022.

8.  In the present case, no such error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the decision of the Board was observed by the Judge or was pointed out by the applicant apart from the mere assertions as stated in his grounds of appeal, which were not substantiated with any specific information or elaboration as to how they apply to his present appeal.

9.  In our view, the matters set out in the notice of appeal failed to identify any error on the part of the Judge and do not amount to any viable ground of appeal. The applicant’s appeal is devoid of merits. We dismiss it accordingly.