RE NONEHAL SINGH

CACV 75/2025, [2026] HKCA 219

On Appeal From [2025] HKCFI 399

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 75 OF 2025

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 2106 OF 2024)

_______________

_______________

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 Bruno Chan (“the Judge”) dated 11 February 2025 ([2025] HKCFI 399) (“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 22 October 2024 (“the Board’s Decision”), whereby the Board dismissed his appeal against the decision of the Director of Immigration (“the Director”) dated 12 August 2024, 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 [1] ‑ [9] of the Leave Decision.  The Judge has also set out in detail the grounds advanced by the applicant in support of the Leave Application and his reasons for refusing the Leave Application: see [10] ‑ [15] of the Leave Decision.  We will not repeat those details herein.

3.  By the Notice of Appeal filed on 17 February 2025, the applicant complained that the Director, the Board and the Court failed to appreciate or give proper weight to state acquiescence, and that the Board failed to make sufficient enquiry before finalising its determination and the Director had been unfair to him.

4.  The appeal was listed to be heard on 2 September 2025.  The applicant was directed to lodge two sets of skeleton argument on or before 5 August 2025 and was warned that if he failed to do so, he would be deemed to have waived his right to have an oral hearing for the appeal and the hearing date would be vacated with the appeal being determined on paper.  The directions and the warning were sent to the applicant by the Notice of Hearing dated 23 July 2025.  However, the applicant did not lodge any skeleton argument in support of his appeal.

5.  As the applicant failed to lodge a skeleton argument by the stipulated time, the hearing was thus vacated on 7 August 2025 and we proceeded to consider his appeal on paper.

Discussion

6.  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].

7.  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)].

8.  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.

9.  In our view, the present application is devoid of merit.  The applicant’s allegations are all vague, bare and general in nature.  More importantly, his complaints are mainly directed at the Board’s Decision and he fails to specifically identify errors in the Leave Decision.  His submissions are essentially a repeat of those submissions advanced before the Judge, which the Judge had duly considered and rejected: see [10] ‑ [15] of the Leave Decision.  It is trite that an appeal against the refusal of leave by a judge in the Court of First Instance is not an occasion for regurgitating arguments advanced and rejected by the judge: Nupur Mst v Director of Immigration (supra) at [14(2)].  The applicant merely disagrees with the Judge’s observations, but fails to point out with specific particulars how the Judge erred in law or on the facts.  Clearly, his assertions are not proper grounds of appeal and must fail.

10.  For the above reasons, we see no basis to interfere with the Leave Decision.  The applicant’s appeal has no merit and is hereby dismissed.