PRAMANICK SUKUMAR v. NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

CACV 891/2025, [2026] HKCA 697

On appeal from [2025] HKCFI 4649

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 891 OF 2025

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 1099 OF 2020)

__________________________

BETWEEN

__________________________

________________

JUDGMENT

________________

The Court:

INTRODUCTION

1.  This is the applicant’s appeal against the order of Deputy High Court Judge (Non-refoulement Claims) Lewis Law (“the Judge”) dated 8 October 2025[1] (“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 28 May 2020 (“the Board’s 2^nd Decision”) whereby the Board dismissed his appeal against the decision of the Director of Immigration (“the Director”) dated 9 May 2017 (“the Director’s 2^nd 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 8 October 2025 (“the Form CALL-1”), the Director has rejected the applicant’s claim under BOR 3, torture risk and persecution risk in his decision dated 25 November 2014 (“the Director’s 1^st Decision”) and the applicant’s appeal against it was rejected by a Board’s decision dated 24 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 India. He lodged a non-refoulement claim with the Immigration Department on the basis that, if refouled, he would be harmed or killed by his creditor named Bijay Shaw over an unpaid 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 respectively. A summary of the applicant’s background and his process before the Director and the Board regarding his BOR 2 Risk can be found under paragraphs [1] – [4] of 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 17 October 2025, the applicant sought to appeal the Judge’s decision to this court on the ground that (sic) :-

“I do not agree with the decision of the Court of First Instance. The learned Judge did not consider my problem properly. I have severe problem in my home country.”

6.  In the applicant’s skeleton submissions lodged on 4 March 2026, he reiterated his claim and that his life would be at risk if refouled and that he would be tortured or killed by his enemy. He asserted that :-

a. the Judge failed to apply the principles of rationality, procedural unfairness and high standards of fairness, and also failed to analyse his claims properly;

b. the Board failed to give him sufficient chance to arrange for the relevant evidence and failed to evaluate whether a consistent pattern of gross and mass violation of human rights in his home country;

c. the Board relied on source of news which is not officially recognised or was simply hearsay;

d. the Board failed to analyse and assess the issue of state protection in his home country.

7.  At the hearing on 23 March 2026, the applicant said his life is still in danger if he returns to his home country.

DISCUSSION & DISPOSITION

8.  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)).

9.  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.

10.  In the present case, the Judge found no error of law or procedural unfairness or irrationality in the decision of the Board. The mere assertions as stated in the applicant’s ground of appeal and his submissions are not substantiated with any specific information or elaboration as to how they apply to his present appeal.

11.  It is incumbent on the applicant to point out the Judge's errors with sufficient particulars and specifics. In our view, the matters set out in the applicant’s notice of appeal and written submissions failed to identify any error on the part of the Judge. They do not constitute any viable grounds of appeal and lack substance. We see no basis to interfere with the Judge’s decision.

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