MALKIT SINGH v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD

CACV 335/2025, [2026] HKCA 779

On Appeal From [2025] HKCFI 1965

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 335 OF 2025

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 240 OF 2023)

________________________

_____________________

________________________

JUDGMENT

________________________

The Court:

INTRODUCTION

1.  This is the Applicant’s appeal against the order of Deputy High Court Judge Bruno Chan (“the Judge”) dated 15 May 2025, 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 2 February 2023 (“the Board’s Decision”).

BACKGROUND

2.  The Applicant is a national of India.  On 13 March 2021, the Applicant lodged a non-refoulement claim on the basis that, if refouled, he would be harmed or killed by certain local supporters of Indian National Congress Party as he supported their rival Shiromani Akali Dal.[1]  The Applicant’s non-refoulement claim was rejected by the Director of Immigration (“the Director”) on 24 February 2022, and the appeal against the Director’s decision was rejected by the Board on 2 February 2023.  Details of the Applicant’s claim and the Board’s reasons for rejecting the Applicant’s appeal can be found in the Form CALL-1 dated 15 May 2025.[2] 

3.  The Applicant’s application for leave to apply for judicial review was refused by the Judge on 15 May 2025.  Details of the Judge’s reasons for refusing to grant leave can be found in the Form CALL-1. 

GROUNDS OF APPEAL

4.  In the Notice of Appeal filed on 26 May 2025, the Applicant states that:

“THE HIGH COURT DID NOT CONSIDER MY J.R. ADJUDICATOR DID NOT GIVE ME CORRECT DECISION. HIS DECISION IS FULL OF WRONG. PLEASE GRANT MY LEAVE.” (sic)

5.  The Applicant has failed to lodge written submissions in support of the appeal in accordance with the directions given by the Registrar of Civil Appeals on 27 December 2025.  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.  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.

DISCUSSION & DISPOSITION

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 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.  

8.  The matters raised in the Applicant’s Notice of Appeal are all general allegations without particulars.  They do not constitute any valid grounds of appeal against the Judge’s order.

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

[1] Form CALL-1, §1.

[2] In the Form CALL-1, refer to §§1-6 for the basis of claim, and §§9-10 for the Board’s reasons for dismissing the appeal.