RE HARJINDER SINGH

CACV 186/2025, [2026] HKCA 220

On Appeal From [2025] HKCFI 1173

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 186 OF 2025

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 2074 OF 2024)

_______________

_______________

J U D G M E N T

_______________

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

1.  This is the applicant’s appeal against the order of Deputy High Court Judge Bruno Chan (“the Judge”) dated 27 March 2025 ([2025] HKCFI 1173) (“the Leave Decision”) refusing his application for leave to apply for judicial review (“the Leave Application”) against the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office (“the Board”) dated 30 October 2024 (“the Board’s Decision”), whereby the Board dismissed his appeal against the decision of the Director of Immigration dated 19 July 2024, refusing his non-refoulement claim.

2.  The applicant’s background, the basis of his claim and arguments advanced before the Board as well as the Board’s reasons for rejecting his appeal are all set out in the Board’s Decision: see [1] ‑ [9] of the Leave Decision.  The Judge has also set out his reasons for refusing the Leave Application: see [10] ‑ [15] of the Leave Decision.  We will not repeat those details herein.

3.  By the Notice of Appeal filed on 9 April 2025, the applicant stated:

“I am not agree with the decision of the Court, because the learned Judge may not analyze my problem in the application. This decision make my life in risk and it make me liable to go back to my home country where my life is not. If I return back there I will be killed by my enemies.” (sic)

4.  The appeal was listed to be heard on 2 September 2025.  The applicant was directed to lodge two sets of skeleton argument on or before 5 August 2025 and was warned that if he failed to do so, he would be deemed to have waived his right to have an oral hearing for the appeal and the hearing date would be vacated with the appeal being determined on paper.  The directions and the warning were sent to the applicant by the Notice of Hearing dated 23 July 2025.  However, the applicant did not lodge any skeleton argument in support of his appeal.

5.  As the applicant failed to lodge a skeleton argument by the stipulated time, the hearing was thus vacated on 7 August 2025 and we proceeded to consider his appeal on paper.

Discussion

6.  The relevant legal principles governing appeals in non‑refoulement cases are set out in Nupur Mst v Director of Immigration [2018] HKCA 524 at [14].

7.  In particular, in an appeal against refusal of leave to apply for judicial review in non-refoulement cases, the Court of Appeal will 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 decision maker’s decision afresh as if it were a fresh application for judicial review.  See Nupur Mst v Director of Immigration [2018] HKCA 524 at [14(6)].

8.  In light of the above, it is thus incumbent on the applicant to point out the errors in the Leave Decision with sufficient particulars and specifics.

9.  Nowhere in his Notice of Appeal or written submissions did the applicant identify any error with specific particulars committed by the Judge.  His assertions are all general, bare and vague allegations unsupported by specific particulars or evidence.  General and bare assertions of his fear if refouled do not constitute valid grounds of appeal: Re Saldua Dorothy Trifalgar [2022] HKCA 627 at [6].  Furthermore, the Judge had thoroughly considered and analysed his case and given detailed reasons for refusing his application to apply for judicial review for lack of merits: see [12] ‑ [15] of the Leave Decision.  Clearly, his assertions have no substance and do not constitute viable grounds of appeal and must accordingly fail.

10.  For the above reasons, we see no basis to interfere with the Leave Decision.  The applicant’s appeal has no merit and is hereby dismissed.