RE SINGH MANDEEP

CACV 155/2025, [2025] HKCA 574

On Appeal From [2025] HKCFI 944

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 155 OF 2025

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO. 79 OF 2020)

________________________

________________________

_________________

JUDGMENT

_________________

Hon Andrew Chan J (giving the Judgment of the Court) :

1)  The appeal

1.  This is an appeal by the applicant against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge Michael Wong of 13 March 2025 in which he refused to grant leave to him to apply for judicial review.

2.  Despite the directions of the Registrar of Civil Appeals dated 22 April 2025, the applicant failed to lodge the skeleton argument by the stipulated time. Accordingly, the Court would deal with this appeal on paper based on the documents available.

2)  Background

3.  The applicant is a national of India. He last arrived in Hong Kong in October 2014 with his passport as a visitor but he overstayed. In November 2014, the applicant surrendered to the Immigration Department. On 27 January 2015, the applicant raised his non-refoulement claim[1].

4.  The basis of the applicant’s claim is that if he returns he would be harmed or killed by Amrit Kaur and her people since Amrit Kaur has filed an appeal case in court to claim an equal share of farmland from the applicant’s father[2].

5.  The background facts have been summarized in the decision of the Judge at [4].

3)  The Director’s Decision

6.  The Director of Immigration (‘the Director’) decided against the applicant’s claim on 27 September 2017. The decision covered Bill of Rights Article 3 (torture/inhuman treatment) risk (‘BOR 3’), Bill of Rights Article 2 (right to life) risk (‘BOR 2’) as well as other statutory and convention rights against torture and persecution[3] (‘the Director’s Decision’).

4)  The Board’s Decision

7.  The applicant appealed against the Director’s Decision to the Torture Claims Appeal Board[4]. After a hearing held on 19 November 2019, the Board dismissed the applicant’s appeal on 3 January 2020 (‘the Board’s Decision’).

8.  The Board’s findings are summarized in the decision of the Judge at [10]-[15].

5)  Decision of the Judge

9.  The applicant filed his Form 86 and affirmation, but he did not advance any ground for his intended judicial review. He only stated in his affirmation that he would like to reject and set aside the decision made by the Immigration Department[5].

10.  The Judge held that the applicant’s bare assertions would not be accepted by the Court. The Board observed a high standard of fairness. The Court could not detect any error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the Board’s decision. There was no realistic prospect of success in the applicant’s intended judicial review[6].

6)  Grounds of appeal

11.  The applicant in the notice of appeal stated that :

‘And further take notice that the grounds of this appeal are that the Plaintiff will face hardship if he is to return back to his home country and that the Torture Claims Appeal Board has significantly relied on the source of news which is not officially recognized, or it is simply hearsay. They have also relied on some cases which are outdated considering the dramatic changes. The lack of credible source of information has resulted in them making groundless speculations.’

7)  Our view

12.  We are of the view that the applicant’s appeal is without merits. His grounds of appeal consist of bare allegations without particulars or specifics. The applicant provided no reasonably arguable grounds for judicial review. An appeal against refusal of leave for judicial review is not an occasion for the applicant to regurgitate arguments already advanced. The Court of Appeal would only reverse the decision of the Judge if it could be demonstrated that there were errors in law, that the Judge failed to take into account relevant matters, or the decision was otherwise plainly wrong : see United Muslim Association of Hong Kong v Yusuf Yu [2018] HKCA 451 at [38] and [39].

13.  It is thus incumbent on the applicant to point out with sufficient particularity the errors allegedly committed by the Judge in assessing the Board’s Decision. None of the arguments raised by the applicant shows the Judge has made any error of law.

14.  We see no basis to disturb the Judge’s decision. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.