AMARASINGHA ARACHCHIGE ANUSHA PRASANGI v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

CACV 854/2025, [2026] HKCA 356

On appeal from [2025] HKCFI 4553

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 854 OF 2025

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 2638 OF 2019)

__________________________

between

__________________________

________________

JUDGMENT

________________

The Court:

Introduction

1.  This is the applicant’s appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge To (“the Judge”) dated 30 September 2025[1] refusing her application for leave to apply for judicial review against the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Petition Office (the “Board”) dated 3 September 2019 (the “Board’s Decision”) whereby the Board dismissed her appeal against the decision of the Director of Immigration (the “Director”) dated 22 January 2019 (the “Director’s Decision”).

The applicant’s claim and the Judge’s decision

2.  The applicant is a national of Sri Lanka. In her non-refoulement claim form filed with the Immigration Department on 5 December 2018, she lodged a claim on the basis that, if refouled, she would be harmed or killed by a loan shark for being unable to repay a loan borrowed from him to pay an agent for arranging her employment in Hong Kong. The applicant’s non-refoulement claim was rejected by the Director, and her appeal against it was rejected by the Board on 3 September 2019. 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.

3.  The applicant’s application for leave to apply for judicial review was refused by the Judge and details of the Judge’s reasons for refusing to grant leave can be found in the Form CALL-1.

The appeal

4.  By a notice of appeal filed on 8 October 2025, the applicant sought to appeal the Judge’s decision to this court. For the grounds of appeal, the applicant stated that (sic) “I want to appeal against the decision. The decision is unreasonable. I plead to the court of appeal to review my application”, but without providing any grounds of appeal.

5.  In her skeleton submissions lodged on 23 December 2025, she briefly repeated her claim and argued that (sic) :

“I am from Sri Lanka. I arrive in Hong Kong on 23 April 2008 to work as a domestic helper. My contract was pre-maturely terminated on 30 June 2008. I did not leave Hong Kong and overstayed since 15 July 2008. I surrendered to the immigration department on 27 October 2015 and made a non-refoulement claim. I release on recognize pending my claims. I did not go back home because I received threatened message to killed or harmed by loan shark because I did not pay back the money I owned to Loan Agency. I cannot pay back the money because my contract finish no have salary. After receiving notice of decision issue by the immigration for dismissing my claims, the torture claims appeal board also dismiss my claims. Now my application in the court of appeal and I wish the judge will reconsider my leave application to save my life. I cannot returned my country without the money I own to Loan Shark. The loan shark very powerful in my country and also I don’t want to be with my husband because domestical violence.

My husband is reason I came to Hong Kong to work. I will be gratefull if my application is reconsidered.”

6.  At the hearing, the applicant said that according to her mother, the creditor comes to her home every month, threatening her mother for the outstanding debt.

Our reasons for decision

7.  The Court of Appeal’s general approach in dealing with appeals in non-refoulement cases is set out in Nupur Mst v Director of Immigration [2018] HKCA 524, at [14]. In particular, 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, at [14(6)]).

8.  Further, 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 is an error of law or procedural unfairness or irrationality in the decision of the Board: Re Kartini [2019] HKCA 1022.

9.  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 notice of appeal or her written submissions failed to identify any error on the part of the Judge. What she said at the hearing adds nothing to her appeal. They do not constitute any viable grounds of appeal and lack substance. We see no basis to interfere with the Judge’s decision.

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