SUMEET RANA v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD

CACV 1250/2025, [2026] HKCA 1554

On Appeal From [2025] HKCFI 6189

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 1250 OF 2025

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 1865 OF 2020)

________________________

________________________

_____________________

JUDGMENT

_____________________

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

1.  On 17 December 2025, Deputy High Court Judge Michael Wong made an order refusing to grant to the Applicant leave to apply for judicial review.  The intended judicial review was against the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office dated 27 August 2020, whereby the Board dismissed the Applicant’s appeal against the decision of the Director of Immigration dated 26 March 2019 rejecting his non-refoulement claim.

2.  On 17 March 2026, this Court gave its judgment (“the CA Judgment”) dismissing the Applicant’s appeal against the order of the Judge.  The basic facts of this case and the Court’s reasons for dismissing the Applicant’s appeal have been set out in the CA Judgment and will not be repeated here.

3.  By a Notice of Motion filed on 1 April 2026, the Applicant applies for leave to appeal the CA Judgment to the Court of Final Appeal.  In the Notice of Motion, the Applicant alleges that the Board made errors of law and the High Court wrongly treated those errors as not arguable, the Board misapplied the legal tests for torture risk and BOR 3 risk, the Board wrongly characterised the “harm as a private dispute and did not properly address the nexus to political opinion”, the Board failed to provide sufficient justification for discounting crucial aspects of his account and for concluding that he would not face a genuine risk of serious harm, the Board improperly relied on general information about legal remedies in India without adequately assessing whether protection would be effective in his specific local area, the Board did not properly confront the issue of state protection and acquiescence or at least the legal consequence of ineffective protection, the Board’s internal relocation conclusion was superficial, and the High Court erred in denying leave on the merits.

4.  In his written submissions dated 15 April 2026, the Applicant complains that the Board used the wrong approach when deciding “how serious the harm was”, the Board was wrong to say his case was only a private dispute, the Board did not give enough proper reasons for its decision, the Board relied too much on general information about India and did not properly look at his local situation, and the Board’s decision about internal relocation was too simple and not realistic.  He also says that the court should not have refused leave at such an early stage, and asks for an oral hearing “if needed”.

5.  Pursuant to paragraph 3 of Practice Direction 2.1, we determine the present application for leave to appeal on paper without an oral hearing.

6.  Under s 22(1)(b) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance, Cap 484, an appeal shall lie to the Court of Final Appeal at the discretion of the Court of Appeal or the Court of Final Appeal in any civil cause or matter if, in the opinion of the Court of Appeal or the Court of Final Appeal (as the case may be), the question involved in the appeal is one which, by reason of its great general or public importance, or otherwise, ought to be submitted to the Court of Final Appeal for decision.

7.  Many of the complaints raised by the Applicant’s in the Notice of Motion and in his written submissions are new points which were not raised in his appeal.  Further, it is well established that the assessment of evidence, COI, risk of harm, state protection and viability of internal relocation are primarily within the province of the Board and the Director, and the court will not intervene by way of judicial review unless there are errors of law or procedural unfairness or irrationality in their decisions.  As held in the CA Judgment, none has been shown in the present case.  In any event, the Applicant’s complaints are all specific to his own case, and do not raise any question of great general or public importance.

8.  In short, no question of great general or public importance involved in the intended appeal is identified in the Notice of Motion.  We are unable to see any such question being involved in the intended appeal.  The Applicant has not raised any viable ground of appeal against the CA Judgment.  We are satisfied that the intended appeal has no reasonable prospect of success.

9.  There is also no basis to grant leave to appeal on the “or otherwise” limb in s 22(1)(b) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance.

10.  Accordingly, the application for leave to appeal is refused and the Notice of Motion is dismissed.