RE YADAV JITLAL

CACV 1216/2025, [2026] HKCA 233

On appeal from [2025] HKCFI 6236

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 1216 OF 2025

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL 1840/2020)

-----------------------------------

-----------------------------------

___________________

J U D G M E N T

___________________

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

1.  This is an appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge Michael Wong (“the Judge”) given on 17 December 2025[1] (“the Leave Decision”) refusing to grant leave for the applicant to apply for judicial review. The intended judicial review was against the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board/adjudicator of the Non-Refoulement Claims Petition Office (“the Board”) dated 26 August 2020 (“the Board’s Decision”) dismissing the applicant’s appeal against the decision of the Director of Immigration dated 26 May 2020 rejecting the applicant’s non‑refoulement claim.

2.  The applicant’s background, the basis of his claim and the Board’s reasons in reaching the Board’s Decision have been set out by the Judge in the Leave Decision at [1]-[2] and [13]-[18], which will not be repeated. 

3.  The applicant did not ask for an oral hearing for his leave application.  After considering the documents filed by the applicant, the Judge dismissed the application for the reasons stated at [10]-[21] of the Leave Decision.

Appeal to this court

4.  In the Notice of Appeal filed on 22 December 2025, the applicant stated, in gist, that the Leave Decision was unfair (without providing particulars) and contended that the Judge “did not consider properly [his] problem and [his] problem is very severe”.  He further claimed that he would be killed by his enemies should he be refouled.

5.  In breach of the directions made by the Registrar of Civil Appeals, the applicant failed to lodge skeleton submissions with the court, despite being warned that the hearing date would be vacated and the appeal dealt with on paper in the event of non-compliance.

6.  The requirement for lodging of skeleton submissions in an appeal is prescribed by Practice Direction 4.1.  The compliance with such requirement on the part of an applicant is important for the proper and effective functioning of our appeal process.  The skeleton submissions are important for the preparation of an appeal, both for the judges and the litigants.  The non-compliance with such requirement substantially impairs the exercise of case management power of the presiding judge in an appeal, including the effective management of the oral hearing.  Nowadays, this court no longer permits unfocused oral presentation of material at an oral hearing.  In view of the heavy demand on the court’s time due to the large volume of appeals, in recent times this court has taken a firm stance on the requirement to lodge skeleton submissions.  Non-compliance with such requirement is treated as the abandonment of the right to an oral hearing.

7.  The hearing date on 10 February 2026 was therefore vacated and the applicant was debarred from lodging any written submissions.  We have dealt with the appeal on paper on the basis of the materials already filed with the court. 

Discussion

8.  As this court has often stated, an appeal to the Court of Appeal is not a fresh application for judicial review.  It is necessary to identify some error on the part of the judge that would justify this court in intervening: see Nupur Mst v Director of Immigration [2018] HKCA 524 at [14].  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.  An appeal is not the occasion for regurgitating arguments advanced and rejected by the judge or for running arguments which could and should have been raised but were not raised before the judge.  In the determination of an appeal, the Court of Appeal focuses on the decision of the judge and the court will only reverse that decision if an appellant could demonstrate that the judge made errors of law or failed to take account of relevant matters already placed before the court or was otherwise plainly wrong.

9.  The applicant has failed to identify any error on the part of the Judge and thus failed to raise any viable ground of appeal. The points advanced by the applicant were bare assertions unsupported by particulars or evidence.  General assertions of fear if refouled do not constitute proper grounds of appeal: Re Saldua Dorothy Trifalgar [2022] HKCA 627 at [6].

10.  In the present case, the Board found the factual bases of the applicant’s claim or alleged risk of harm to be incredible, as such claims were unsubstantiated by the evidence he proffered (Board’s Decision, [46]‑[67]).  The Board was not satisfied that the applicant would be at a real risk of harm should he be refouled to India, and that in any event, the Board concluded that suitable options of internal relocation were available to the applicant in order to minimise the risk of harm, if any (Board’s Decision, [70]-[73]).  These were factual findings open to the Board on the evidence, and were sufficiently canvassed and considered by the Judge in the Leave Decision.  We have also subjected the Board’s Decision to anxious scrutiny, and we see no basis to interfere with the Judge’s findings and conclusions.

11.  The applicant has failed to demonstrate how the Board had acted unlawfully or procedurally unfairly in reaching its Decision, or how such Decision could be said to be Wednesbury unreasonable.

12.  As we have noted, the applicant advanced no viable grounds of appeal against the Judge’s decision. There is therefore no merit in the appeal and we dismiss the appeal accordingly.