RAKESH MASIH v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD

CACV 589/2026, [2026] HKCA 1325

On Appeal From [2026] HKCFI 2992

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 589 OF 2026

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO. 510 OF 2022)

____________________

____________________

________________

J U D G M E N T

________________

Hon Anthony Chan JA (giving the Judgment of the Court) :

1.  This is the Applicant’s appeal against the order of Deputy High Court Judge Bruno Chan (“Judge”) dated 28 May 2026 (“Order”) refusing to grant leave to apply for judicial review of the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office (“Board”) dated 9 June 2022 (“Board’s Decision”) whereby the Board dismissed his appeal against the decision of the Director of Immigration (“Director”) dated 4 October 2021 (“Director’s Decision”).

2.  The Applicant is a national of India.  He lodged a non-refoulement claim with the Immigration Department on the basis that, if refouled, he would be harmed or killed by certain local Hindu extremists for being a Christian. The Applicant’s non-refoulement claim was rejected by the Director, and his appeal against it was rejected by the Board. Details of the Applicant’s claim and the Board’s reasons for rejecting the Applicant’s appeal can be found in the Board’s Decision, the hyperlink to which can be found in the Form CALL-1 dated 28 May 2026, footnote 1.

3.  The Applicant’s application for leave to apply for judicial review was refused by the Judge and details of the Judge’s reasons for refusing to grant leave can be found in the Form CALL-1.

4.  By a Notice of Appeal filed on 4 June 2026, the Applicant seeks to appeal the Judge’s decision to this Court. For the grounds of appeal, the Applicant stated that :

“I am disagree with the decision maker authorities. Such as the Judgement Given by the court of First Instance and the both Respondent’s. There are not Proper investigation in my case. So I do not think my case determined fairly.”

5.  This appeal was scheduled to be heard on 28 July 2026. The Applicant has failed to lodge any skeleton argument in support of his appeal in accordance with the directions given by the Registrar of Civil Appeals on 4 June 2026. Accordingly, the Applicant is deemed to have waived his right to have an oral hearing of the appeal and elected to have the appeal disposed of on paper. Having considered the documents before us, we consider that it is appropriate to deal with the Applicant’s appeal on paper without an oral hearing.

6.  The general approach of this Court in dealing with appeals in non-refoulement cases has been set out in Nupur Mst v Director of Immigration [2018] HKCA 524 at [14]. In particular, in an appeal against refusal of leave to apply for judicial review in non-refoulement cases, this Court 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. This Court’s role is not to examine the Board’s decision afresh as if it is a fresh application for judicial review (see Nupur Mst at [14(6)]).

7.  The grounds contained in the Notice of Appeal have no substance. There is no proper attempt by the Applicant to identify any error made by the Judge. There is no basis to interfere with the Judge’s decision.

8.  In the premises, this appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs.