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

CACV 203/2026, [2026] HKCA 943

On Appeal From [2026] HKCFI 900

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 203 OF 2026

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 919 OF 2021)

________________________

BETWEEN

_____________________

_____________________

JUDGMENT

_____________________

Deputy High Court Judge Yuen (giving the Judgment of the Court) :

INTRODUCTION

1.  This is the Applicant’s appeal against the order of DHCJ Levy (“the Judge”) dated 24 February 2026 (“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 17 June 2021 (“the Board’s Decision”).

BACKGROUND

2.  The Applicant is a national of India. On 31 December 2015, the Applicant lodged a non-refoulement claim on the basis that, if refouled, he would be harmed or killed by (i) his uncle due to a land dispute, and (ii) his girlfriend’s family who disapproved of the former’s love affair with him.[1] The Applicant’s claim was rejected by the Director of Immigration (“the Director”) on 21 December 2018, and the appeal against the Director’s decision was rejected by the Board on 17 June 2021. 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 24 February 2026.[2]

3.  The Applicant’s application for leave to apply for judicial review was refused by the Judge on 24 February 2026. 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 6 March 2026, the Applicant states the following:

“I would like to reject and review the Decision made By the Court and TCAB they Disregard my Dangerous Situation.” (sic)

5.  In the 6-page skeleton argument filed on 25 March 2026, the Applicant reiterates his non-refoulement claim in respect of the threats from his uncle, but states that he no longer has problems with his former girlfriend’s family.

LEGAL PRINCIPLES

6.  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)).

7.  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

8.  The matters raised in the Applicant’s Notice of Appeal and skeleton argument are all general allegations without particulars. They do not constitute any valid grounds of appeal against the Order.

9.  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.

10.  The Applicant’s appeal has no merit, and is dismissed.