REGMI KRISHNA PRASAD v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD/ NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

CACV 914/2025, [2026] HKCA 25

On Appeal From [2025] HKCFI 4710

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 914 OF 2025

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO. 1563 OF 2020)

____________________

________________

JUDGMENT

________________

Hon Anthony Chan JA (giving the Judgment of the Court):

1.  This is the Applicant’s appeal against the order (“Dismissal Order”) of Deputy High Court Judge (Non-refoulement Claims) Vincent Lung (“Judge”) dated 10 October 2025 by which his application for leave to apply for judicial review (“Leave Application”) against the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board (“Board”) dated 18 June 2020 (“Board’s Decision”) was dismissed. By that decision, the Board upheld the decision of the Director of Immigration (“Director”) to reject the Applicant’s non-refoulement claim.

2.  The Applicant is a national of Nepal.  The basis of his non-refoulement claim had been set out in detail in the Board’s Decision, which may be viewed online via the hyperlink contained in footnote 2 of the CALL-1 Form.  In gist, the Applicant claims that he would be harmed or killed by the Maoists if he returns to Nepal.

3.  In [6] to [12] of the CALL-1 Form, the Judge gave detailed reasons for refusing the Leave Application.

4.  By a Notice of Appeal filed on 22 October 2025, the Applicant appeals against the Judge’s decision.  In summary, the Applicant contends that:

(1)     As a self-represented litigant, the Applicant had fewer chances to present his case and felt disadvantaged;

(2)     The Judge failed to consider his language limitations;

(3)     The Applicant did not understand the proceedings and there was no proper support, so he was unable to find specific errors in the Board’s Decision;

(4)     The Judge’s acceptance of the Board’s approach failed to address whether the inquiry was truly adequate, given the evidence of potentially material oversight.  The Judge also failed to respond to the Applicant’s submissions based on the Country of Origin information (“COI”);

(5)     The Judge and the Board failed to adequately consider the issue of state protection; and

(6)     The Applicant should be given language assistance to understand the CALL-1 Form.

5.  This appeal was scheduled to be heard on 8 January 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 27 November 2025.  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.  Having considered the documents before us, we consider that it is appropriate to deal with the Applicant’s appeal on paper without an oral hearing.

6.  The general approach of this Court in dealing with appeals in non-refoulement cases has been set out in Nupur Mst v Director of Immigration [2018] HKCA 524 at [14].  In particular, in an appeal against refusal of leave to apply for judicial review in non-refoulement cases, this Court 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.  This Court’s role is not to examine the Board’s decision afresh as if it is a fresh application for judicial review (see Nupur Mst at [14(6)]).

7.  Further, 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.  The court will not intervene by way of judicial review unless there is an error of law or procedural unfairness or irrationality in the decision of the Board: Re Kartini [2019] HKCA 1022 at [13].

8.  In respect of the grounds of appeal, we note that the issues pertaining to COI and state protection had been addressed by the Judge in [10] and [11] of the CALL-1 Form and the Applicant has not identified any error in the Judge’s reasoning.  Regarding the lack of language assistance, it has been repeatedly emphasised by this Court that as a matter of law, a non-refoulement claimant is not entitled to free legal representation at all stages of the process and that the high standard of fairness required by law does not entail interpretation service being made available to an applicant all the time as he desires: Re Pante Luisa Tuppil [2025] HKCA 1123 at [11].   We therefore do not see any merit in the grounds of appeal.

9.  In the premises, the appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs.