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

CACV 1151/2025, [2026] HKCA 97

On Appeal From [2025] HKCFI 5412

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 1151 OF 2025

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 1123 OF 2025)

________________________

_____________________

_______________

J U D G M E N T

_______________

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

1.  This is the Applicant’s appeal against the order of Deputy High Court Judge K W Lung (“the Judge”) dated 24 November 2025 (“the Order”) refusing to grant leave to the Applicant to apply for judicial review of the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office (“the Board”) dated 28 April 2025 (“the Board’s Decision”), whereby the Board dismissed the Applicant’s appeal against the decision of the Director of Immigration (“the Director”) dated 18 February 2025 refusing his non-refoulement claim.

2.  The Applicant alleges that, if refouled to India, he will be harmed or killed by the family members of his ex-girlfriend due to a personal family dispute. The Applicant’s background, the basis of his claim, the findings of the Board and its reasons for dismissing the Applicant’s appeal against the Director’s decision have been set out in the Board’s Decision, and summarised by the Judge in the Judge’s decision (see §§4-10 of the CALL-1 Form). We do not propose to repeat them here.

3.  The Judge’s reasons for dismissing the Applicant’s leave application are set out at §§13-17 of the CALL-1 Form. In gist, the Judge found that the Applicant failed to raise any or any proper grounds of intended challenge against the Board’s Decision, and considered that there was no valid basis to interfere with the Board’s findings.

THIS APPEAL

4.  In his Notice of Appeal filed on 8 December 2025, the Applicant states the following:

“I am disagree with the decision maker authorities…I do not think my case determined fairly.” [sic]

5.  In his written submissions lodged on 13 January 2026, the Applicant complains for the first time about not having been provided with legal or language assistance. He alleges generally that the Board unlawfully fettered its discretion and acted in a procedurally unfair manner, and its decision was unreasonable or irrational in the public law sense and was a result of procedural errors. He also alleges that the authorities acted in a discriminatory manner towards non-refoulement claimants.

6.  At the hearing of the appeal, the Applicant had nothing to add to his written submissions.

DISCUSSION

7.  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’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)).

8.  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 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, at §13. No such error of law or procedural unfairness or irrationality in the decision of the Board is shown in the present case.

9.  The Applicant’s complaint about the lack of legal and language assistance is a new point which was not raised in his application below. He is not entitled to raise it for the first time in the Court of Appeal. In any event, it has no merit. The Applicant had free legal assistance from the Duty Lawyer Service in relation to the assessment of his non-refoulement claim by the Director[1]. He was provided with language assistance at the hearing of his appeal before the Board[2]. It is well established that a non-refoulement claimant is not entitled to free legal representation or language assistance at all stages of the assessment of his non-refoulement claim. In any event, the Applicant has failed to show that he was inhibited or hampered from advancing any particular point or ground before the Director or the Board by reason of the alleged lack of legal or language assistance.

10.  The other complaints raised by the Applicant are directed at the decisions of the Director and/or the Board, and are all bare assertions without particulars. They cannot constitute valid grounds of appeal against the Judge’s decision.

11.  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.

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