RE NATTAPON CHAISONGKAM

CACV 277/2025, [2025] HKCA 1072

On Appeal From [2025] HKCFI 1412

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 277 OF 2025

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 3164 OF 2019)

____________________

____________________

_______________

J U D G M E N T

_______________

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

1.  This is the applicant’s appeal against the order of Deputy High Court Judge KW Lung (“the Judge”) dated 8 May 2025 ([2025] HKCFI 1412) (“the Leave Decision”) refusing his application for leave to apply for judicial review (“the Leave Application”) against the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office (“the Board”) dated 29 July 2020 (“the Board’s Decision”), whereby the Board dismissed his appeal against the decision of the Director of Immigration (“the Director”) dated 27 February 2020, refusing his non‑refoulement claim.

2.  The applicant’s background, the basis of his claim and arguments advanced before the Board as well as the Board’s reasons for rejecting his appeal are all set out in the Board’s Decision: see [4] ‑ [11] of the Leave Decision.  The Judge also sets out in detail the grounds advanced by the applicant in support of the Leave Application and the Judge’s reasons for refusing the Leave Application: see [12] ‑ [19] of the Leave Decision.  We will not repeat the details herein.

3.  By the Notice of Appeal filed on 9 May 2025, the applicant stated:

“…the grounds of this appeal are that the gravity of my circumstances have noted been weighed or realized by both putative Respondents while considering my non-refoulement claim. I should be given an opportunity to plead my case properly.” (sic)

4.  By his supporting affirmation filed on 9 May 2025, the applicant also asserted that he understood “there [was] a good ground of appeal that was not necessarily considered at the stage of applying for leave for judicial review” and that he “was informed that the Director of Immigration and the Adjudicator did not see the grounds to reverse their decisions”.  Yet the applicant failed to give any particulars or details on the alleged “good ground”.

5.  The applicant lodged written submissions on 10 October 2025.  In those submissions, he cited various general propositions and legal authorities on the high standards of fairness and Wednesbury unreasonableness, as well as section 37ZT of the Immigration Ordinance (Cap 115), which relates to the late filing of notice of appeal before the Board.  However, the applicant failed to specify how those legal principles were relevant to his case.

6.  We heard the appeal on 25 November 2025.  A Thai interpreter was present to provide language assistance.  During the hearing, the applicant asked the Court to grant him more time to stay in Hong Kong as he has been here for some time and that his family members are also in Hong Kong. He further claimed that his parents in Thailand were deceased and the situation in Thailand became worse and he wished to stay here longer.

DISCUSSION

7.  The relevant legal principles governing appeals in non‑refoulement cases are set out in Nupur Mst v Director of Immigration [2018] HKCA 524 at [14].

8.  In particular, in an appeal against refusal of leave to apply for judicial review in non-refoulement cases, the Court of Appeal will 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’s role is not to examine the decision maker’s decision afresh as if it were a fresh application for judicial review.  See Nupur Mst v Director of Immigration [2018] HKCA 524 at [14(6)].

9.  In light of the above, it is thus incumbent on the applicant to point out the errors in the Leave Decision with sufficient particulars and specifics.

10.  Nowhere in his Notice of Appeal, supporting affirmation or submissions did the applicant identify any error committed by the Judge.  His assertions are all general, bare and vague allegations unsupported by specific particulars or evidence.  General assertions of his fear if refouled do not constitute proper grounds of appeal: Re Saldua Dorothy Trifalgar [2022] HKCA 627 at [6].  The applicant already had ample opportunities to present his case before the Judge.  Clearly, his assertions do not constitute viable grounds of appeal and must fail.  We see no basis to interfere with the Leave Decision.

11.  For the above reasons, the applicant’s appeal against the Leave Decision has no merit and is dismissed.