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

CACV 377 /2025, [2025] HKCA 1136

On appeal from [2025] HKCFI 2282

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 377 OF 2025

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 123 OF 2025)

________________________

________________________

J U D G M E N T

________________________

Hon Kwan VP (giving the Judgment of the Court):

Background

1.  This is an appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge Reuden Lai dated 30 May 2025[1] refusing to grant leave for the applicant to apply for judicial review against the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board (“the Board”) concerning his non‑refoulement claim.  As the applicant was removed from Hong Kong in September 2025, we will deal with this appeal on paper.

2.  The applicant is a national of India.  He last arrived in Hong Kong on 6 September 2024 and was refused permission to land.  He lodged a non-refoulement claim on the same day.  His claim was made on the basis that, if refouled, he will be harmed by the village head and the local members or supporters of the Aam Aadmi Party (“AAP”) because of his political affiliation with the Waris Punjab De (“WPD”). 

Decisions of the Director and the Board

3.  By a Notice of Decision dated 28 October 2024, the Director of Immigration (“the Director”) rejected the applicant’s non-refoulement claim on all applicable grounds including torture risk[2], BOR 2 risk[3], BOR 3 risk[4] and persecution risk[5]. 

4.  The applicant lodged an appeal with the Board and attended the hearing before the Board on 9 December 2024.  In light of the applicant’s complete lack of knowledge about WPD, the Board did not accept that he had been politically active in his village.  The Board further found that WPD is not a political party according to the country of origin information and that the applicant’s evidence is inconsistent.  The Board held that the applicant’s claims are untrue and concluded that there is no basis for his claim that he would be harmed by the village head and the AAP supporters if he were to return to India.  Therefore, the Board affirmed the Director’s decision and dismissed the appeal on 24 December 2024.

The judge’s decision

5.  The applicant filed a Form 86 and an affirmation on 9 January 2025 to seek leave to apply for judicial review against the decision of the Board.

6.  The applicant attended the hearing before DHCJ Reuden Lai on 3 April 2025.  The judge found that there is no error of law, procedural unfairness, or failure to apply high standards of fairness in the consideration and assessment of the claim.  The judge concluded that the intended judicial review has no realistic prospect of success and dismissed the leave application on 30 May 2025.

Grounds of appeal

7.  The applicant stated the following grounds of appeal in the Notice of Appeal filed on 9 June 2025:

(1)     The Director failed to appreciate or give proper importance or weight to the presence of state acquiescence.  The adjudicator and the court failed to take this into account before reaching their decisions;

(2)     The adjudicator failed to make sufficient enquiries before finalising the determination;

(3)     In referring to the relevant country of origin information, the Director included meanings which suited his pre-conceived conclusion; and

(4)     The gravity of the applicant’s circumstances has not been weighed or realised in considering his claim.  The applicant should be given an opportunity to plead his case properly.

Legal principles

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.  In particular, in an appeal against refusal of leave to apply for judicial review in a non-refoulement case, 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’s role is not to examine the Board’s or the Director’s decision afresh as if it is a fresh application for judicial review.

Analysis and disposition

9.  The applicant’s grounds and submissions are just bare assertions without particulars or evidence in support.  The applicant has already put forward his grounds in his leave application made to the court below and he was also given the opportunity to make oral submissions at the oral hearing before the judge.  The judge has given detailed reasons for rejecting the application.  The applicant has not been able to demonstrate any error in the decision of the judge.  We are not satisfied that there is any error in the judge’s decision.

10.  The applicant’s appeal is accordingly dismissed.