KAPOOR RAVIKANT v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD

CACV 591/2025, [2026] HKCA 157

On appeal from [2025] HKCFI 3238

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 591 OF 2025

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 292 OF 2020)

________________________

_____________________

_______________

J U D G M E N T

_______________

The Court:

Introduction

1.  This is the applicant’s appeal against the order of Deputy High Court Judge Michael Wong (“the Judge”) dated 29 July 2025 (“the Order”), refusing to grant leave to apply for judicial review of the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office (“the Board”) dated 30 October 2019 (“the Board’s Decision”).

Background

2.  The applicant is a national of India. On 21 July 2016, the applicant lodged a non-refoulement claim on the basis that, if refouled, he would be harmed or killed by his paternal uncle and his own wife due to a land dispute.[1] The applicant’s non-refoulement claim was rejected by the Director of Immigration (“the Director”) on 15 August 2018, and the appeal against the Director’s decision was rejected by the Board on 30 October 2019. 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, the hyperlink to which can be found in the CALL-1 Form dated 29 July 2025.[2]

3.  The applicant’s application for leave to apply for judicial review was refused by the Judge on 29 July 2025. Details of the Judge’s reasons for refusing to grant leave can be found in the CALL-1 Form.

Grounds of appeal

4.  In the Notice of Appeal filed on 11 August 2025, the applicant states the following that:

“I want to apply Judicial Review against my ORDER because I am not satisfied with this ORDER.” (sic)

5.  In the skeleton arguments lodged on 15 December 2025, the applicant essentially argues that:

(1)  The Director and the Board wrongly assessed the applicant’s non-refoulement claim.

(2)  The applicant’s right to life is protected under the Basic Law and the Bill of Rights.

(3)  The Director failed to give sufficient weight to state acquiescence.

(4)  The Board placed too much reliance on country of origin information and failed to take into account the applicant’s personal background and experience.

(5)  The Director failed to give enough weight to country of origin information that the police in the applicant’s country would not be able to protect before reaching his decision.

(6)  The Board dismissed the applicant’s appeal based on the findings which the Board ought to allow the appeal.

6.  The applicant added nothing by way of oral submission at the hearing before us.

Legal principles

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.  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.

Discussion & disposition

9.  The matters raised in the applicant’s Notice of Appeal are all general allegations without particulars whereas the complaints in the skeleton arguments are directed at the Director and/or the Board. They do not constitute any valid grounds of appeal against the Judge’s decision.

10.  The applicant has failed to identify or show any error in the Judge’s decision refusing to grant leave to apply for judicial review, or raise any viable ground of appeal against the Order.

11.  The applicant’s appeal has no merit, and is dismissed.