RE BARUA SAJU alias CHOUDHARY ANIMESH BIMOL

CACV 280/2025, [2025] HKCA 1073

On Appeal From [2025] HKCFI 1714

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 280 OF 2025

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 2979 OF 2019)

____________________

____________________

_______________

J U D G M E N T

_______________

Hon Au JA (giving the Judgment of the Court):

1.  This is the applicant’s appeal against the order of Deputy High Court Judge To (“the Judge”) dated 28 April 2025 ([2025] HKCFI 1714) (“the Leave Decision”) refusing his application for leave to apply for judicial review (“the Leave Application”) against the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office (“the Board”) dated 24 July 2019 (“the Board’s Decision”), whereby the Board dismissed his appeal against the decision of the Director of Immigration (“the Director”) dated 22 May 2019, refusing his non‑refoulement claim.

2.  The appeal was listed to be heard on 25 November 2025.  The applicant was directed to lodge two sets of skeleton argument on or before 28 October 2025 and was warned that if he failed to do so, he would be deemed to have waived his right to have an oral hearing for the appeal and the hearing date would be vacated with the appeal being determined on paper.  The directions and the warning were communicated to the applicant by the Notice of Hearing dated 6 October 2025.  However, the applicant did not lodge any skeleton argument in support of his appeal.

3.  As the applicant failed to lodge a skeleton argument by the stipulated time, he was deemed to have waived his right to have an oral hearing and elected to have his appeal disposed of on paper.  The hearing date was thus vacated on 31 October 2025.

4.  On 21 November 2025, the applicant lodged a Request for Dismissal of Appeal.  On the basis of his said request, we dismiss the Notice of Appeal filed on 12 May 2025.  In any event, his appeal also fails for lack of merit, which we will explain further below.

5.  The applicant’s background, the basis of his claim and arguments advanced before the Board as well as the Board’s reasons for rejecting his appeal are all set out in the Board’s Decision: see [2] ‑ [12] of the Leave Decision.  The Judge also sets out in detail the grounds advanced by the applicant in support of the Leave Application and the Judge’s reasons for refusing the Leave Application: see [14] ‑ [19] of the Leave Decision. We will not repeat those details herein.

6.  By the Notice of Appeal filed on 12 May 2025, the applicant stated:

“the leave application has been refused. I am not agree with the decision which was made by the Court of First Instance. This decision make me liable to go back to my home country where my life is not safe. If I return back there I will be killed by my enemies. In the current situation police are being tortured by extremists, so who can save my life in my country.” (sic)

DISCUSSION

7.  The relevant legal principles governing appeals in non‑refoulement cases are set out in Nupur Mst v Director of Immigration [2018] HKCA 524 at [14].

8.  In particular, in an appeal against refusal of leave to apply for judicial review in non-refoulement cases, the Court of Appeal will 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 decision maker’s decision afresh as if it were a fresh application for judicial review.  See Nupur Mst v Director of Immigration [2018] HKCA 524 at [14(6)].

9.  In light of the above, it is thus incumbent on the applicant to point out the errors in the Leave Decision with sufficient particulars and specifics.

10.  Nowhere in his Notice of Appeal did the applicant identify any error committed by the Judge with specific particulars.  He merely disagreed with the Leave Decision but failed to point out any error.  His assertions are all general, bare and vague allegations unsupported by specific particulars or evidence.  General assertions of his fear if refouled do not constitute proper grounds of appeal: Re Saldua Dorothy Trifalgar [2022] HKCA 627 at [6].  Clearly, his assertions do not constitute viable grounds of appeal and lack substance.  We see no basis to interfere with the Leave Decision.

11.  For the above reasons, the applicant’s appeal against the Leave Decision has no merit and is hereby also dismissed on merits.