MILLE PATABANDIGE LAKSHMAN LEEL JAYASENA v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

CACV 509/2025, [2026] HKCA 753

On Appeal From [2025] HKCFI 2425

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 509 OF 2025

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 3062 OF 2019)

________________________

_____________________

________________

J U D G M E N T

________________

The Court:

INTRODUCTION

1.  This is the Applicant’s appeal against the order and judgment of DHCJ KW Lung (“the Judge”) dated 8 July 2025 (“the Order” and “the Judgment”) refusing to grant leave to apply for judicial review of the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office (“the Board”) dated 10 October 2019 (“the Board’s Decision”).

BACKGROUND

2.  The Applicant is a national of Sri Lanka. The Applicant lodged a non-refoulement claim on the basis that, if refouled, he would be harmed or killed by members of the People’s Alliance / Sri Lankan Freedom Party / United People’s Freedom Alliance because of his involvement in supporting the Unit National Party in the General Election in 2004. The Applicant’s non-refoulement claim was rejected by the Director of Immigration (“the Director”) on 22 February 2019, and the appeal against the Director’s decision was rejected by the Board on 10 October 2019.

3.  The Applicant’s application for leave to apply for judicial review was refused by the Judge on 8 July 2025. Details of the Judge’s reasons for refusing to grant leave can be found in the Judgment.

GROUNDS OF APPEAL

4.  In the Notice of Appeal filed on 16 July 2025, the Applicant stated that:

“I wold like to tell that without hearing my case was refused. I am not satisfied in this matter because I have some document submit regarding my cas immportent suporting document when my oral hearing I explain all properly.”

5.  The Applicant has failed to attend the hearing before the Judge on 19 May 2025. He has also failed to lodge written submissions in support of the appeal in accordance with the directions given by the Registrar of Civil Appeals. Accordingly, the Applicant is deemed to have waived the right to have an oral hearing of the appeal and elected to have the appeal disposed of on paper.

LEGAL PRINCIPLES

6.  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 was a fresh application for judicial review (see Nupur Mst v Director of Immigration [2018] HKCA 524, at §14(6)).

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

DISCUSSION & DISPOSITION

8.  The matters raised in the Applicant’s Notice of Appeal are inaccurate and lack substance. They do not constitute any valid grounds of appeal against the Judge’s decision.

9.  The Applicant has failed to identify or substantiate 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.

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