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

CACV 888/2025, [2026] HKCA 696

On appeal from [2025] HKCFI 4268

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 888 OF 2025

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 1232 OF 2020)

__________________________

BETWEEN

__________________________

________________

JUDGMENT

________________

The Court:

INTRODUCTION

1.  This is the applicant’s appeal against the order of Deputy High Court Judge K.W. Lung (“the Judge”) dated 8 October 2025[1] (“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 7 May 2020 (“the Board’s 2^nd Decision”) whereby the Board dismissed his appeal against the decision of the Director of Immigration (“the Director”) dated 17 January 2017 (“the Director’s Decision”) regarding his right to life under Article 2 of the Hong Kong Bill of Rights (“BOR 2 Risk”).

2.  As noted by the Judge at paragraphs [1] – [3]of the Form CALL-1 dated 8 October 2025 (“the Form CALL-1”), the Director has rejected the applicant’s claim under BOR 3, torture risk and persecution risk in his decision dated 15 August 2014 (“the Director’s 1^st Decision”) and the applicant’s appeal against it was rejected by a Board’s decision dated 4 March 2016 (“the Board’s 1^st Decision”). Even though the applicant did not challenge in the Director’s 1^st Decision and the Board’s 1^st Decision in his leave application, the Judge took into account and considered all the decisions from the Director and the Board.

BACKGROUND

3.  The applicant is a national of India. He lodged a non-refoulement claim with the Immigration Department on the basis that, if refouled, he would be harmed or killed by his ex-wife’s family as he had a dispute with his ex-wife, Parminder, which led to the murder of the wife of Parminder’s brother by his ex-wife family for getting involved in the Applicant and his ex-wife’s dispute. The applicant’s non-refoulement claim was rejected by the Director’s 1^st Decision and the Director’s 2^nd Decision, and his appeals against them were rejected by the Board’s 1^st Decision and the Board’s 2^nd Decision respectively. Details of the applicant’s claim and the Board’s reasons for rejecting the applicant’s appeals can be found in the Board’s 1^st Decision, the hyperlink to which can be found in the Form CALL-1, and a summary of the applicant’s process regarding the Board’s 2^nd Decision can be found under paragraphs [15] – [16] of the Form CALL-1.

4.  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.

GROUNDS OF APPEAL

5.  By a notice of appeal filed on 16 October 2025, the applicant sought to appeal the Judge’s decision to this court on the ground that (sic) :-

“I would like to reject and review the decision made by the court. They disregard my dangerous situation.”

6.  In the applicant’s skeleton submissions lodged on 5 March 2026, he stated that (sic) :-

Basis of the claim:

I filed for the non-refoulment application as I am worried that my return to my country will endanger my life. And it is also my right to be allowed for Judicial review to investigate my case. And the lack of understanding in my country also constitutes an unfair decision made by the TCAB. This should be considered as an impropriety of judgement

Ground of Appeal:

1. The recent decision has not shown fairness in assessing my rights and the sensitivity in understanding my case. When the court has refused my leave for review. They have not assessed the actual situation in India.

2. India has long been a country that is fraught with problems on human rights issues. Their police and their COI system have been well known for its corruption and ineffectiveness.

3. In a 2026 UN report, it has called India to investigate the systemic policing failures over reports of deaths and torture in custody. …

4. In Amnesty International’s human rights report on India, it has noted the police has used violence across countries like West Bengal, Jammu and Kashmir, just to cite a few.

5. Most importantly, the COI stated by the TCAB was just based on knowledge by researching simple documents without understanding the cultural context in India. People are fleeing to seek asylum because countries could not protect their people and state protection is not really working in India. And these should be the main factor to be considered whether a person, who already demonstrated his life is at stake and received no protection from the state, be granted asylum.

7.  At the hearing on 24 March 2026, the applicant said he has two children who have the same status as his and wishes to rely on that fact to support his appeal.

DISCUSSION & DISPOSITION

8.  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)).

9.  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.

10.  In the present case, the Judge found no error of law or procedural unfairness or irrationality in the decision of the Board. The mere assertions as stated in his grounds of appeal and his submissions are not substantiated with any specific information or elaboration as to how they apply to his present appeal. His reliance on the fact that he has two children who are allegedly also non-refoulement claimant, is misconceived. It does not assist his appeal.

11.  It is incumbent on the applicant to point out the Judge's errors with sufficient particulars and specifics. In our view, the matters set out in the applicant’s notice of appeal and written submissions 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. We dismiss it accordingly.