RE MANJINDER KAUR

CACV 925 /2025, [2026] HKCA 1213

On appeal from [2025] HKCFI 4721

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 925 OF 2025

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO. 2248 OF 2020)

________________________

________________________

________________________

J U D G M E N T

________________________

Hon Chu VP (giving the Judgment of the Court):

Introduction

1.  This is the applicant’s appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge Levy (“the Judge”)  given on 15 October 2025[1] refusing her application for leave to apply for judicial review against the decision dated 6 November 2020 of the Torture Claims Appeal Board (“the Board”).  The Board had by its decision dismissed the applicant’s appeal against the decision dated 28 June 2018 of the Director of Immigration (“the Director”)  which rejected the applicant’s non-refoulement claim having regard to the torture risk[2], BOR 3 risk[3] persecution risk[4] and BOR 2 risk[5].

2.  The applicant has consented to the appeal being determined on the papers without an oral hearing.  Despite directions given by the Court, she did not lodge any written submission to support the appeal.  

Background

3.  The applicant is an Indian national born in 1985. She arrived in Hong Kong on 11 August 2015 and was given permission to remain to work as a foreign domestic helper. After her employment contract was terminated in May 2016 and the extension of stay expired on 10 June 2016, she did not depart and has since overstayed.  On 28 June 2016, she surrendered to the Immigration Department and later lodged a non-refoulement claim.  

4.  The applicant’s claim was based on fear of being harmed or killed by her ex-husband because she had a relationship with his younger brother. According to the applicant, after her ex-husband found out the relationship, he badly assaulted her.  She was treated at a medical clinic and her parents took her home to rest.  Her ex-husband demanded her to be handed back as he wanted to kill her, but her parents refused and eventually arranged for her to come to Hong Kong.  Her ex-husband later divorced her.  Details of her claim, her evidence before the Board and the Board’s reasons for refusing her appeal were set out in the Board’s decision[6].

5.  In gist, the Board, for the reasons given in [45] to [61] of its decision, found the applicant’s evidence was vague, confusing and inconsistent in material aspects and not credible and unreliable.  The Board did not accept her claims about the threats and violence from her ex-husband, or that she was a person of adverse interest to any person or group in India at the time when she left.  The Board concluded that on the evidence, the applicant had no entitlement to non-refoulment protection under any of the applicable grounds.

6.  On 11 November 2020, the applicant filed a Form 86 and a supporting affirmation to seek leave to judicially review the Board’s decision.  Other than stating in the affirmation that the Director disregarded her danger and the threat made to her, the applicant did not provide any grounds for seeking relief.   

7.  The Judge heard the application at a hearing held on 18 September 2025, during which the applicant stated that she had nothing to add to her application.  By a Form CALL-1 dated 15 October 2025, the Judge refused the leave application. Principally, the Judge held that the intended judicial review enjoyed no realistic prospect of success in that the Board’s finding on credibility and its rejection of the applicant’s evidence were proper, and the applicant had not raised any valid challenge to the Board’s decision.  

This appeal

8.  On 23 October 2025, the applicant filed a Notice of Appeal to appeal the Judge’s decision.  The grounds of appeal stated that the gravity of the applicant’s circumstances had not been taken note of, weighed or realized when the Director and the Board considered her claim.  

Discussion

9.  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 is a fresh application for judicial review: see Nupur Mst v Director of Immigration [2018] HKCA 524 at [14].

10.  Further, it is well established that 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 as they are the primary decision makers.  The Court, in its supervisory role, 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.

11.  We are of the view that the grounds of appeal are unarguable.  Firstly, insofar as the applicant seeks to challenge the Director’s decision, this is not permissible as the applicant had appealed it to the Board and the Board’s decision had superseded the Director’s decision.  Secondly, contrary to the applicant’s contention, the Board had given due consideration to the applicant’s accounts made to the Director and also her evidence in the appeal hearing before the Board.  It had also carefully analyzed them and gave detailed reasons for concluding that the applicant’s evidence was not credible and could not be accepted.  Thirdly, the applicant in both the application made to the Judge and in this appeal, has not identified any error in the Board’s assessment of the evidence and its findings, or any irrationality or procedural irregularity.  In the circumstances, there is no evidential support to the applicant’s assertion that she faced or would face danger and threat in her home country.  The Judge’s decision to dismiss the application for leave to apply for judicial review cannot be faulted. 

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

13.  By a letter dated 3 April 2026 which the Court received on 14 April 2026, the Director informed the Court that the applicant was removed from Hong Kong to her home country in the period from 23 to 29 March 2026, and further forwarded a notice signed by the applicant on 26 March 2026 giving her correspondence address in her home country.  A copy of this judgment will be sent to the applicant at the address provided in the notice.