RE JASWINDER SINGH

CACV 633/2026, [2026] HKCA 1486

On appeal from [2026] HKCFI 2875

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 633 OF 2026

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL 1522/2025)

-----------------------------------

-----------------------------------

___________________

J U D G M E N T

___________________

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

1.  This is an appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge KW Lung (“the Judge”) given on 4 June 2026[1] (“the Leave Decision”) refusing to grant leave for the applicant to apply for judicial review.  The intended judicial review was against the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board/adjudicator of the Non-Refoulement Claims Petition Office (“the Board”) dated 25 June 2025 (“the Board’s Decision”) dismissing the applicant’s appeal against the decision of the Director of Immigration dated 24 February 2025 rejecting the applicant’s non-refoulement claim.

2.  The applicant’s background, the basis of his claim and the Board’s reasons in reaching the Board’s Decision have been set out therein[2] as well as by the Judge in the Leave Decision at [8]-[10], which will not be repeated. 

3.  The applicant did not request for an oral hearing for the leave application.  After considering the documents filed by the applicant, the Judge dismissed the application for the reasons stated at [13]-[18] of the Leave Decision.  

Appeal to this court

4.  In a Notice of Appeal dated 12 June 2026, the applicant set out comprehensive grounds of appeal spanning 9 pages.  In gist, insofar as such grounds relate to the Board’s Decision and the Leave Decision, the applicant complains inter alia that (i) the Judge erred by not applying “rigorous examination and anxious scrutiny” to the Boards’ findings, including its problematic findings on credibility of the applicant; (ii) the Board’s finding on credibility was based on the written signification submitted by the applicant which was “completed without legal assistance”; (iii) the Judge failed to acknowledge that the Board’s finding on internal relocation was “legally inadequate”.

5.  In his written submissions dated 23 July 2026, the applicant essentially repeated the background to his claim as well as the complaints he had already set out in the Notice of Appeal.

6.  We heard the appeal on 6 August 2026, at which the applicant appeared in person.  At the hearing, the applicant had nothing to add to the matters and submissions already set out in the documents lodged with the court.

Discussion

7.  As this court has often stated, an appeal to the Court of Appeal is not a fresh application for judicial review.  It is necessary to identify some error on the part of the judge that would justify this court in intervening: see Nupur Mst v Director of Immigration [2018] HKCA 524 at [14].  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.  An appeal is not the occasion for regurgitating arguments advanced and rejected by the judge or for running arguments which could and should have been raised but were not raised before the judge.  In the determination of an appeal, the Court of Appeal focuses on the decision of the judge and the court will only reverse that decision if an appellant could demonstrate that the judge made errors of law or failed to take account of relevant matters already placed before the court or was otherwise plainly wrong.

8.  The applicant has failed to identify any error on the part of the Judge and thus failed to raise any viable ground of appeal.  The points advanced by the applicant were bare assertions unsupported by particulars or evidence.

9.  In the present case, the Board found the applicant to be an incredible witness by reason of material inconsistencies in his evidence.  Thus, the Board refused to accept that the applicant’s alleged fear of harm at the hands of the family of his late girlfriend, Jasmine, would pose a real risk of harm upon refoulement.  In any event, the Board took the view that suitable options of internal relocation were available to the applicant in order to minimise the risk of harm, if any.  These were factual findings open to the Board on the evidence, and were sufficiently canvassed and considered by the Judge in the Leave Decision at [8]-[18].  We see no basis to interfere.

10.  The applicant has accordingly failed to demonstrate how the Board had acted unlawfully or procedurally unfairly in reaching its Decision, or how such Decision could be said to be Wednesbury unreasonable.

11.  As we have noted, the applicant advanced no viable grounds of appeal against the Judge’s decision.  There is therefore no merit in the appeal and we dismiss the appeal accordingly.  

[1]  [2026] HKCFI 2875

[2] https://legalref.judiciary.hk/doc/judg/html/vetted/other/en/2025/HCAL001522_2025_files/the_Board's_Decision.pdf