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

CACV 86/2026, [2026] HKCA 598

On Appeal from [2026] HKCFI 304

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 86 OF 2026

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 861 OF 2021)

________________________

_____________________

________________________

JUDGMENT

________________________

Hon H. Au-Yeung J (giving the Judgment of the Court):

1.  This is the applicant’s appeal against the order (“the Dismissal Order”) of Deputy High Court Judge (Non-refoulement Claims) Jeffrey Chau (“the Judge”) dated 22 January 2026 by which her application for leave to apply for judicial review (“the Leave Application”) against the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board (“the Board”) dated 3 June 2021 (“Board’s Decision”) was dismissed. By that decision, the Board upheld the decision of the Director of Immigration (“the Director”) rejecting the applicant’s non-refoulement claim.

2.  The applicant is a national of Bhutan.  The basis of his non-refoulement claim had been set out in detail in the Board’s Decision, which may be viewed online via the hyperlink contained in footnote 1 of the CALL-1 Form.  In gist, the applicant claims that if he returns home, he will be harmed or killed by the Christians in his village.

3.  In [5] to [11] of the CALL-1 Form, the Judge gave detailed reasons for refusing the Leave Application.

4.  By a Notice of Appeal filed on 2 February 2026, the applicant contends that:

“I am disagree with the decision maker authorities. They were relied on some web news which officially not recognized by government. There are not proper investigation in my claim. My life still in danger in my country. So I do not think my case determined fairly.”

5.  This appeal was scheduled to be heard on 26 March 2026.  The applicant has failed to lodge any skeleton argument in support of his appeal in accordance with the directions given by the Registrar of Civil Appeals on 2 February 2026 (“the Directions”).  Accordingly, the applicant is deemed to have waived his 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.

6.  The general approach of this Court in dealing with appeals in non-refoulement cases has been 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, this Court 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.  This Court’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)]).

7.  Further, the assessment of evidence, Country of Origin information (“COI”), 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 is an error of law or procedural unfairness or irrationality in the decision of the Board: Re Kartini [2019] HKCA 1022 at [13].

8.  In the Notice of Appeal, the applicant claimed that the “decision maker authorities” relied on some “web news” and did not investigate into his claim. As the Judge pointed out at [9], the Board did investigate into his claim about being persecuted by Christians (a minority religious group in Bhutan) and found it to be improbable.  The applicant has not substantiated any error in the Judge’s observation or any public law error in the Board’s evaluation of the COI.  This ground of appeal is without merit.

9.  For the above reasons, the appeal is without merit.  We therefore dismiss the appeal with no order as to costs.