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

CACV 8/2026, [2026] HKCA 388

On Appeal From [2025] HKCFI 6035

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 8 OF 2026

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 695 OF 2021)

________________________

________________________

________________________

J U D G M E N T

________________________

Hon Eugene Fung J (giving the Judgment of the Court):

1.  This is the applicant’s appeal against the order of Deputy High Court Judge (Non-refoulement Claims)  Jeffrey Chau (“the Judge”)  dated 24 December 2025 ([2025] HKCFI 6035)  (“the Leave Decision”)  refusing his application for leave to apply for judicial review (“the Leave Application”)  against the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office (“the Board”)  dated 27 April 2021 (“the Board’s Decision”), whereby the Board dismissed his appeal/petition against the decision of the Director of Immigration (“the Director”)  dated 9 October 2018, refusing his non-refoulement claim excluding torture claim.  The applicant’s torture claim was refused by the Director of Immigration on 19 August 2013, and the applicant did not file an appeal against the Director’s decision within the statutory limit, and so his torture claim was finally determined according to section 37V(2)(a)  of the Immigration Ordinance, Cap. 115.

2.  The applicant’s background, the basis of his claim and arguments advanced before the Board as well as the Board’s reasons for rejecting his appeal/petition are all set out in the Board’s Decision: see [1]-[3], [8] of the Leave Decision. 

3.  The applicant claimed that he arrived in Hong Kong from Macau in April 2013 with his passport and was refused permission to land, and he raised his non-refoulement claim on the same day.  On 19 August 2013, the applicant’s torture claim was rejected.  He also applied for non-refoulement under the right not to be subjected to cruel inhuman degrading treatment or punishment in June 2013.  The basis of his claim is that if he returned to India, he will be harmed or killed by some unidentified people because of their private dispute with the applicant’s friend Kirandeep Ram.  This was rejected by the Director on 9 October 2018.

4.  The Judge also sets out his reasons for refusing the Leave Application: see [7] - [10] of the Leave Decision.  We will not repeat the details herein.

5.  By the Notice of Appeal filed on 5 January 2026, the applicant stated the following:-

“I want to appeal against the judgment. Please review my application. The decision is not reasonable.”

6.  In his written submissions, the applicant mostly repeated some factual and procedural background information.  He also asserted that the Torture Claims Appeal Board rejected his claim without a hearing.

7.  At the hearing, the applicant stated that he gathered from his brother who is currently in Portugal that there is ongoing threat to his life in India and that he has no home to go back to in India.

8.  The relevant legal principles governing appeals in non-refoulement cases are set out in Nupur Mst v Director of Immigration [2018] HKCA 524 at [14].

9.  In particular, in an appeal against refusal of leave to apply for judicial review in non-refoulement cases, the Court of Appeal will 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’s role is not to examine the decision maker’s decision afresh as if it were a fresh application for judicial review.  See Nupur Mst v Director of Immigration [2018] HKCA 524 at [14(6)].

10.  In light of the above, it is thus incumbent on the applicant to point out the errors in the Leave Decision with sufficient particulars.

11.  However, nowhere in his Notice of Appeal or written submission has the applicant identified any error committed by the Judge with particulars.  His assertions are all general, bare and vague allegations unsupported by specific particulars or evidence.  The Court will not usurp the role of the Board.  Assessment of evidence, country of origin information materials, 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.  No such error was demonstrated by the applicant.  Clearly, his assertions do not constitute viable grounds of appeal.  We see no basis to interfere with the Leave Decision.

12.  For the above reasons, the applicant’s appeal against the Leave Decision has no merit and is dismissed.