MAGENDHIRAN ARUNKUMAR v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

CACV 1246/2025, [2026] HKCA 324

On Appeal From [2025] HKCFI 6217

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 1246 OF 2025

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 1144 OF 2025)

________________________

_____________________

________________________

JUDGMENT

________________________

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

1.  This is the Applicant’s appeal against the order of Deputy High Court Judge K W Lung (“the Judge”) dated 19 December 2025 (“the Order”) refusing to grant leave to the Applicant to apply for judicial review of the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office (“the Board”) dated 7 May 2025 (“the Board’s Decision”), whereby the Board dismissed the Applicant’s appeal against the decision of the Director of Immigration (“the Director”) dated 28 February 2025.

2.  The Applicant alleges that, if refouled to India, he will be harmed or killed by his neighbour because his family refused to give up a piece of farmland to the neighbour.  The Applicant’s background, the basis of his claim, the findings of the Board and its reasons for dismissing his appeal against the Director’s decision have been set out in detail in the Board’s Decision, and summarised by the Judge in the Judge’s decision (see §§3-9 of the CALL-1 Form).  We do not propose to repeat them here.

3.  The Judge’s reasons for dismissing the Applicant’s leave application are set out at §§12-16 of the CALL-1 Form.  In gist, the Judge held that the Applicant had failed to raise any valid ground for his intended challenge of the Board’s Decision.    

THIS APPEAL

4.  In his Notice of Appeal filed on 30 December 2025, the Applicant put forward the following ground(s) of appeal: “The High Court did not consider my [judicial review].  Adjudicator did not give me correct decision.  His decision is full of wrong.  Please grant my leave.” [sic]

5.  In his written submissions lodged on 10 February 2026, the Applicant repeats his claimed fear of harm upon refoulement, and asserts that state protection would not be available to him and there was no reasonable internal relocation alternative for him in India.

6.  The Applicant did not appear at the hearing of the appeal.

DISCUSSION

7.  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)).

8.  Further, 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, at §13.  No such error of law or procedural unfairness or irrationality in the decision of the Board is shown in the present case.

9.  The matters raised in the Applicant’s Notice of Appeal and written submissions are all general assertions without particulars, and do not constitute valid grounds of appeal against the Judge’s decision.

10.  The Applicant has failed to raise any viable ground of appeal against the Order.

11.  The Applicant’s appeal has no merits, and is dismissed.