SANSAR CHAND v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

CACV 890/2025, [2026] HKCA 227

On appeal from [2025] HKCFI 4633

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 890 OF 2025

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO. 1765 OF 2020)

__________________________

__________________________

________________

J U D G M E N T

________________

The Court:

Introduction

1.  This is the applicant’s appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge (Non-refoulement Claims) Martin Wong (“the Judge”) given in the Form CALL-1 dated 9 October 2025[1] refusing his application for leave to apply for judicial review against the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board (the “Board”) dated 25 August 2020 (the “Board’s Decision”) whereby the Board dismissed his appeal against the decision of the Director of Immigration (the “Director”) dated 5 September 2018 (the “Director’s Decision”) rejecting his non‑refoulement protection claim.

The applicant’s claim and the Judge’s decision

2.  The applicant is a national of India. In his non-refoulement claim form filed with the Immigration Department on 15 August 2018, he lodged a claim on the basis that, if refouled, he would be harmed or killed by a powerful politician, Major Vijay Singh Mankotia and his men because he chased for his unpaid wages and attempted to find his disappeared friend. The applicant’s non-refoulement claim was rejected by the Director, and his appeal against it was rejected by the Board on 25 August 2020. 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.

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.

The appeal

4.  By a notice of appeal filed on 16 October 2025, the applicant sought to appeal the Judge’s decision to this court. For the grounds of appeal, the applicant stated that “I want to apply Judicial Review against my ORDER because I am not satisfied with my decision (ORDER).”, but without providing any particulars or elaboration.

5.  The appeal was heard on 10 February 2026. The applicant attended the hearing in person with the assistance of a Hindi interpreter and had nothing to add to his skeleton argument.

6.  In the applicant’s skeleton argument lodged on 29 December 2025, he argued that:

(1)  the Director had failed to appreciate or give proper importance or weight to the presence of state acquiescence in his case;

(2)  the Board acted unreasonably and was procedurally unfair by placing too much reliance on the Country of Origin information (“COI”) but failed to take into account his personal background and experience;

(3)  the Director failed to place sufficient weight on his COI which supported “the aversions that the police in his country would not be able to protect”.

7.  However, apart from his argument above, the applicant did not indicate in his argument any complaint against or identify any error made by the Judge in dismissing his application for leave to take out a judicial review.

Our reasons for decision

8.  The Court of Appeal’s general approach in dealing with appeals in non-refoulement cases is 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, 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 is a fresh application for judicial review (see Nupur Mst, at §14(6)).

9.  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 below will not intervene by way of judicial review unless there is an error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the decision of the Board: Re Kartini [2019] HKCA 1022.

10.  In the present case, no such error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the decision of the Board was observed by the Judge.

11.  It is incumbent on the applicant to point out the Judge's errors with sufficient particulars. We are of the view that the matters set out in the notice of appeal or his skeleton argument failed to identify any error on the part of the Judge. They do not constitute any viable grounds of appeal and lack substance. We see no basis to interfere with the Judge’s decision.

12.  For the above reasons, the applicant’s appeal is devoid of merits. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal.