SATINDER PAL SINGH v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD

CACV 768/2025, [2026] HKCA 543

On appeal from [2025] HKCFI 3994

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 768 OF 2025

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 1101 OF 2025)

__________________________

__________________________

________________

J U D G M E N T

________________

The Court:

INTRODUCTION

1.  This is the applicant’s appeal against the order of Deputy High Court Judge Bruno Chan (“the Judge”) dated 9 September 2025[1](“the Order”) refusing to extend time for the application to apply for leave to judicially review the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office (“the Board”) dated 15 November 2024 (“the Board’s Decision”) whereby the Board dismissed his appeal against the decision of the Director of Immigration (“the Director”) dated 6 August 2024 (“the Director’s Decision”).

BACKGROUND

2.  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 paternal uncle over their land dispute in his home village. The applicant’s non-refoulement claim was rejected by the Director, and his appeal against it was rejected by the Board. 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, the hyperlink to which can be found in the Form CALL-1 dated 9 September 2025 (“the Form CALL-1”).

3.  The applicant’s application for leave to apply for judicial review was not made within statutory timeframe of 3 months from the Board’s decision. After considering the length of the delay, the reason for the delay, the merits of the intended application, and any prejudice to the putative respondent and to public administration, the Judge dismissed it with reasons to be found in the Form CALL-1.

GROUNDS OF APPEAL

4.  By a notice of appeal filed on 19 September 2025, the applicant sought to appeal the Judge’s decision on the ground that (sic) “I am disagree with the decision maker authorities. Decision maker not give my justice. This decision same like Torture Claims Appeal Board and Director of Immigration. I think judiciary system have error. How make same decision. our life still have threating in my home country. Their police only support to ruling party. Then what will I do. I want to stay in Hong Kong only protection of my life. I do not think my claim determined fairly. I need a justice.” 

5.  In the applicant’s skeleton submissions lodged on 27 January 2026, he argued that :

(1)  the Director had failed to appreciate or give the proper importance or weight to the presence of state acquiescence in his case; 

(2)  the authorities acted discriminatorily in quickly disposing non-refoulement cases;

(3)  the Board acted unreasonably and was procedurally unfair by placing too much reliance on the Country of Origin information (“COI”) but failed to take into account his personal background and experience;

(4)  the Director failed to place sufficient weight on his COI which “supported the aversions that the police in his country would not be able to protect”.

6.  At the hearing on 11 March 2026, the applicant confirmed that he has nothing further to add to his written submissions.

DISCUSSION & DISPOSITION

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 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.

9.  In the present case, the Judge found no error of law or procedural unfairness or irrationality in the decision of the Board. His grounds of appeal and submissions contained mere assertions, which were not substantiated with any specific information or elaboration as to how they apply to his present appeal.

10.  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.

11.  For the above reasons, the applicant’s appeal is devoid of merits. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal.