RE SIRIS MAGAR BHIMU

CACV 562/2026, [2026] HKCA 1380

On Appeal From [2026] HKCFI 3090

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 562 OF 2026

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 1326 OF 2023)

_______________

_______________

_______________

J U D G M E N T

_______________

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

INTRODUCTION

1.  This is the applicant’s appeal against the order of Deputy High Court Judge Michael Wong (“the Judge”) dated 27 May 2026[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 25 July 2023 (“the Board’s Decision”).

BACKGROUND

2.  The applicant is a national of Nepal.  She made a non‑refoulement claim on the basis that, if refouled, she would be harmed by her mother and brother, whom she claimed had threatened her because she married a Nepalese man in Hong Kong who was from a different caste and she had converted to Christianity.  Her claim was rejected by the Director of Immigration (“the Director”) on 15 March 2023 and the appeal against the Director’s decision was rejected by the Board on 25 July 2023.  Details of the applicant’s claim and the Board’s reasons for rejecting the applicant’s appeal can be found in the Board’s Decision.

3.  The applicant’s application for leave to apply for judicial review was refused by the Judge on 27 May 2026.  Details of the Judge’s reasons for refusing to grant leave can be found in the CALL-1 Form.

GROUNDS OF APPEAL

4.  In the Notice of Appeal filed on 1 June 2026, the applicant stated that:

“I do not agree with the decision of the Court of First Instance. The court did not scrutinize my claim properly. Despite my problem in my home country is very severe the Court of First Instance and the Torture Claims Appeal Board rejected my claim. The decision makers considered my claims as a simply. If I return to my country I will be killed by my enemies.” (sic)

5.  In the skeleton argument lodged on 24 June 2026, the applicant complained that the Judge’s decision was unreasonable, irrational and procedurally unfair.  The applicant also alleged that the Judge failed to analyse her case properly.  She also claimed that the Board had been irrational in failing to evaluate and make a finding of fact as to whether a consistent pattern of gross and mass violation of human rights and failed to assess whether state protection exists.  She also alleged that the Board failed give her sufficient chance to arrange relevant evidence and that she would face hardship upon refoulement and there is a high risk that she would be being tortured by her enemies.

6.  We heard the appeal on 21 July 2026.  The applicant attended the hearing in person with the assistance of a Nepali interpreter.  She stated that she wanted to stay in Hong Kong as she has a family here and that her son is very young and her husband is a drug addict. 

LEGAL PRINCIPLES

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 below will not intervene by way of judicial review unless there are errors of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the decision of the Board: Re Kartini [2019] HKCA 1022.

DISCUSSION & DISPOSITION

9.  At the outset, the assertions made by the applicant are mainly new grounds not raised before the Judge.  It is well established that this Court will generally not entertain new arguments which are fact‑and‑evidence sensitive which have not been canvassed at the Court of First Instance and for which leave has not been sought within time: Nupur Mst v Director of Immigration, supra at [14]; Re Gurpreet Singh [2021] HKCA 1740 at [15].  On this basis alone, her appeal must be dismissed.

10.  In any event, the matters raised in the applicant’s Notice of Appeal and skeleton argument are all bare allegations without particulars.  They do not constitute any valid grounds of appeal against the Judge’s decision.  General assertions of fear if refouled also do not constitute proper grounds of appeal: Re Saldua Dorothy Trifalgar [2022] HKCA 627 at [6].  The applicant also had ample opportunities before the Board, both orally and in writing, to present her case.[2] As noted by the Judge at [10] of the CALL-1 Form, the applicant’s wish to remain in Hong Kong because she has a family here is not a ground for judicial review against the Board’s Decision.  There is no substance in the applicant’s contentions and we see no basis to interfere with the Judge’s decision.

11.  The applicant has failed to identify or substantiate any error in the Judge’s decision refusing to grant leave to apply for judicial review, or raise any viable ground of appeal against the Order.

12.  The applicant’s appeal has no merit, and is dismissed.