RASHPAL SINGH v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD

CACV 339/2026, [2026] HKCA 1022

On Appeal From [2026] HKCFI 1600

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 339 OF 2026

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO. 757 OF 2021)

____________________

____________________

________________

JUDGMENT

________________

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

1.  This is the Applicant’s appeal against the order of Deputy High Court Judge Bruno Chan (“Judge”) dated 19 March 2026 dismissing his application for leave to apply for judicial review (“Leave Application”) against the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board (“Board”) dated 22 April 2021 (“Board’s Decision”) by which the Board upheld the decision of the Director of Immigration rejecting the Applicant’s non-refoulement claim.

2.  The Applicant is a national of India.  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 [9] of the Form CALL-1 dated 19 March 2026.  In gist, the Applicant claims that if he returns to his home country, he will be harmed or killed by his neighbour over a personal dispute.

3.  In [10] to [15] of the Form CALL-1, the Judge gave detailed reasons for refusing the Leave Application.

4.  By a Notice of Appeal filed on 1 April 2026, the Applicant appeals against the Judge’s decision.  The Applicant contends that :

“THE HIGH COURT DID NOT CONSIDER MY J.R. ADJUDICATOR DID NOT GIVE ME CORRECT DECISION. HIS DECISION IS FULL OF WRONG. PLEASE GRANT MY LEAVE.”

5.  This appeal was scheduled to be heard on 2 June 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 1 April 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.  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, Country of Origin information, risk of harm, state protection and viability of internal relocation are primarily within the province of the Director and the Board. 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.  The grounds of appeal contained in the Applicant’s notice of appeal have no substance as he has failed to identify any error with specificities against the Judge’s decision.  His unsupported assertions are not valid grounds of appeal.

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