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

CACV 885/2025, [2026] HKCA 554

On Appeal From [2025] HKCFI 4718

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 885 OF 2025

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 1591 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 (Non-refoulement Claims) Vincent Lung (“the Judge”) dated 10 October 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 16 July 2020 (“the Board’s Decision”).

BACKGROUND

2.  The Applicant is a national of Nepal. On 9 May 2019, the Applicant lodged a non-refoulement claim on the basis that, if refouled, he would be harmed or killed by the Nepal Communist Party which he considered to be the government as the Maoist-Biplav party to which he belonged organized an event whereby a speaker gave a speech that was critical of the government.[1]  The Applicant’s claim was rejected by the Director of Immigration (“the Director”) on 30 September 2019, and the appeal against the Director’s decision was rejected by the Board on 16 July 2020. 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 10 October 2025.  

3.  The Applicant’s application for leave to apply for judicial review was refused by the Judge on 10 October 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 15 October 2025, the Applicant states the following that:

“Respected high court I want to apply judicial review against my ORDER because I am not satisfied with this ORDER and I don’t want to go back my country because there my life is in danger.” (sic)

5.  In the 2-page written submissions filed on 27 January 2026, 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 weightage to country of origin information that the police in the Applicant’s country would not be able to protect, or failed to take such argument into account, 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.  At the hearing on 13 March 2026, the applicant had nothing to add.

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.

9.  The matters raised in the Applicant’s Notice of Appeal and written submissions are all general allegations without particulars. 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.