RE SINGH SUKHVINDER

CACV 961/2025, [2026] HKCA 309

On Appeal From [2025] HKCFI 4688

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 961 OF 2025

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO. 1868 OF 2020)

________________________

________________________

________________________

J U D G M E N T

________________________

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

1.  This is the applicant’s appeal against the order of Deputy High Court Judge Martin Wong dated 21 October 2025 ([2025] HKCFI 4688)  (‘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 14 September 2020 (‘the Board’s Decision’), whereby the Board dismissed his appeal against the decision of the Director of Immigration (‘the Director’)  dated 26 August 2018, refusing his non-refoulement claim.

2.  This appeal was scheduled to be heard on 15 January 2026. Despite the directions from the Court to the applicant dated 4 December 2025 (‘Directions’), the applicant failed to lodge written submission by the stipulated time.  Accordingly, by [5] of the Directions, the hearing of the appeal was vacated and the Court will now deal with this appeal on paper.

3.  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 [5], [9]-[10] of the Leave Decision[1]. 

4.  In short, on 7 October 2017, the applicant who is an Indian national was arrested by the police for suspected of being an illegal immigrant.  The applicant claimed that he entered Hong Kong illegally in September 2017.  He made a non-refoulement claim on 1 December 2017[2].  The basis of his claim is that if he returned to India, he will be harmed or killed by his ex-wife’s brothers and uncle as he had divorced his ex-wife[3].

5.  The Judge also sets out in detail the grounds advanced by the applicant in support of the Leave Application and his reasons for refusing the Leave Application: see [7]-[12] of the Leave Decision.  We will not repeat the details herein.

6.  By the Notice of Appeal filed on 3 November 2025, the applicant stated the following in summary :

1)  The Director, Adjudicator and Court failed to give sufficient weight to ‘such argument’;

2)  The Director’s Decision failed to give weight to state acquiescence;

3)  The Adjudicator failed to make sufficient inquiry, and failed to provide any credible evidence;

4)  The Adjudicator failed to give applicant sufficient chance to arrange relevant evidence; and

5)  The Director referred to country of origin (‘COI’)  information which suited his pre-conceived conclusion.

I.  Discussion

7.  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].

8.  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)].

9.  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.

10.  However, nowhere in his Notice of Appeal did the applicant identify any error committed by the Judge with specific particulars.  His assertions are all general, bare and vague allegations unsupported by specific particulars or evidence.  General assertions of his fear if refouled do not constitute proper grounds of appeal: Re Saldua Dorothy Trifalgar [2022] HKCA 627 at [6].  The Court will not usurp the role of the Board.  Assessment of evidence, country of origin information materials, 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.  No such error was demonstrated by the applicant.  Clearly, his assertions do not constitute viable grounds of appeal and lack substance.  We see no basis to interfere with the Leave Decision.

11.  For the above reasons, the applicant’s appeal against the Leave Decision has no merit and is dismissed.