WEWELVALA MANGALA NILANTHA v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

CACV 654/2025, [2026] HKCA 873

On appeal from [2025] HKCFI 3134

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 654 OF 2025

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 3193 OF 2019)

__________________________

__________________________

________________

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 K W Lung (“the Judge”) dated 19 August 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 21 October 2019 (“the Board’s 2^nd Decision”) whereby the Board dismissed his appeal against the decision of the Director of Immigration (“the Director”) dated 8 September 2017 (“the 2^nd 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] – [2] of the Form CALL-1 dated 19 August 2025[1](“the Form CALL-1”), the Director has rejected the applicant’s claim under BOR 3, torture risk and persecution risk in his decision dated 13 May 2015 (“the Director’s 1^st Decision”) and the applicant’s appeal against it was rejected by a Board’s decision dated 2 March 2017 (“the Board’s 1^st Decision”). However, these were not challenged in the applicant’s first instance application.  

BACKGROUND

3.  The applicant is a national of Sri Lanka. He lodged a non-refoulement claim with the Immigration Department on the basis that, if refouled, he would be harmed or killed by his enemies, Samarasinghe and Matale Weeshab, to whom his father owed a debt. 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. Details of the applicant’s claim and the Board’s reasons for rejecting the applicant’s appeals can be found in the Board’s Decisions, the hyperlinks to which can be found in 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 28 August 2025, the applicant sought to appeal the Judge’s decision to this court. For the grounds of appeal, the applicant stated that (sic) :-

“I am writing this grounds regarding my time and real situation that still I have problem from loan shark if I go this time my life become danger because he have connection with all gangster in my area he can do any harm to my life I will explain in my oral hearing.”

6.  The appeal was scheduled to be heard on 25 March 2026. The applicant has failed to lodge any skeleton argument in support of his appeal in accordance with the directions given by the Registrar of Civil Appeals on 12 February 2026. Accordingly, the applicant is deemed to have waived his right to have an oral hearing of the appeal, and elected to have the appeal disposed of on paper. The applicant was informed of the same by the court’s letter dated 11 March 2026.

DISCUSSION & DISPOSITION

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.  In the present case, no error of law or procedural unfairness or irrationality in the decision of the Board was detected by the Judge or was pointed out by the applicant apart from the mere assertions as stated in his grounds of appeal, which were not substantiated with any specific information or elaboration as to how they apply to his present appeal. They do not constitute any viable grounds of appeal either and lack substance. We see no basis to interfere with the Judge’s decision.

10.  For the above reasons, the applicant’s appeal is devoid of merits. We dismiss it accordingly.