RE KULDEEP SINGH

CACV 1118/2025, [2026] HKCA 287

On appeal from [2025] HKCFI 5436

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 1118 OF 2025

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL 1343/2020)

-----------------------------------

-----------------------------------

___________________

J U D G M E N T

___________________

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

1.  This is an appeal against the decision of DHCJ (Non‑refoulement Claims) YW Hew (“the Judge”) given on 21 November 2025[1] (“the Leave Decision”) refusing to grant leave for the applicant to apply for judicial review. The intended judicial review was against the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board/adjudicator of the Non-Refoulement Claims Petition Office (“the Board”) dated 8 May 2020 (“the Board’s Decision”) dismissing the applicant’s application for the late filing of a notice of appeal/petition in his intended appeal against the decision of the Director of Immigration dated 28 April 2017 rejecting the applicant’s non-refoulement claim.

2.  The applicant’s background, the basis of his claim and the Board’s reasons in reaching the Board’s Decision have been set out by the Judge in the Leave Decision at [1]-[4], which will not be repeated.  

3.  After considering the documents filed by the applicant as well as oral submissions made by the applicant at the hearing of the leave application, the Judge dismissed the application for the reasons stated at [8]‑[16] of the Leave Decision.   

Appeal to this court

4.  By a Notice of Appeal dated 28 November 2025, the applicant stated that “the gravity of [his] circumstances” have not been “weighed or realised by [the Board] while considering [his] non-refoulement claim” and he asked for an opportunity to “plead [his] case properly”.

5.  By written submissions dated 12 December 2025, the applicant referred to the well-established principles in, inter alia, ST v Director of Immigration (sic)[2] [2014] 4 HKLRD 277, Secretary for Security v Sakthevel Prabakar [2005] 1 HKLRD 289, R v Home Secretary, ex parte Doody [1994] 1 AC 531 and R v Home Secretary, ex parte Bugdaycay [1987] 1 AC 514.

6.  The applicant did not request an oral hearing and consented to the appeal being disposed of on paper by the court.  We will accordingly deal with the appeal on paper on the basis of the materials already filed with the court.

Discussion

7.  As this court has often stated, an appeal to the Court of Appeal is not a fresh application for judicial review.  It is necessary to identify some error on the part of the judge that would justify this court in intervening: see Nupur Mst v Director of Immigration [2018] HKCA 524 at [14].  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.  An appeal is not the occasion for regurgitating arguments advanced and rejected by the judge or for running arguments which could and should have been raised but were not raised before the judge.  In the determination of an appeal, the Court of Appeal focuses on the decision of the judge and the court will only reverse that decision if an appellant could demonstrate that the judge made errors of law or failed to take account of relevant matters already placed before the court or was otherwise plainly wrong.

8.  The applicant has failed to identify any error on the part of the Judge and thus failed to raise any viable ground of appeal. The points advanced by the applicant were bare assertions unsupported by particulars or evidence.  General assertions of fear if refouled do not constitute proper grounds of appeal: Re Saldua Dorothy Trifalgar [2022] HKCA 627 at [6].

9.  In the present case, the Board, in dismissing the applicant’s application for late filing of his notice of appeal/petition, had duly considered the reasons proffered by the applicant as to the delay in the filing of his appeal as well as the substantive merits of his non-refoulement claim (Board’s Decision, [9]-[24]).  These matters were sufficiently canvassed and considered by the Judge in the Leave Decision at [8]-[16].  We see no basis to interfere.

10.  The applicant has failed to demonstrate how the Board had acted unlawfully or procedurally unfairly in reaching its Decision, or how such Decision could be said to be Wednesbury unreasonable.  

11.  As we have noted, the applicant advanced no viable grounds of appeal against the Judge’s decision.  There is therefore no merit in the appeal and we dismiss the appeal accordingly.