RE JASPAL SINGH

CACV 291/2025, [2025] HKCA 1125

On Appeal From [2025] HKCFI 1922

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 291 OF 2025

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 386 OF 2025)

_______________

_______________

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 To (“the Judge”) dated 8 May 2025 ([2025] HKCFI 1922) (“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 15 January 2025 (“the Board’s Decision”), whereby the Board dismissed his appeal against the decision of the Director of Immigration (“the Director”) dated 31 October 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 as summarized at [1] ‑ [20] of the Leave Decision.  The Judge has also set out in detail the applicant’s intended grounds of judicial review and his reasons for refusing the Leave Application: see [22] ‑ [32] of the Leave Decision.  We will not repeat those details herein.

3.  By the Notice of Appeal filed on 14 May 2025, the applicant stated:

“I am not agree with the decision of the Court of First Instance, because this decision make me liable to go back to my home country where my life is not safe. My enemies are still looking for me. If I return back to my country I will be killed by my enemies.” (sic)

4.  The applicant lodged his written submissions on 11 November 2025.  In those submissions, he again reiterated that his life would be at risk if refouled and that he would be killed and tortured by his enemies.  He further asserted that the Judge failed to apply the principles of rationality, procedural fairness and high standards of fairness and also failed to analyse his claims properly.  He further complained that the Board failed to give him sufficient chance to arrange for the relevant evidence and failed to evaluate whether a consistent pattern of gross and mass violation of human rights existed in India or whether state protection existed in India.

5.  In those submissions, he also attached the following four documents (respectively “Document 1” to “Document 4”):

(1)     A Memo of Parties for a criminal case in the high court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh dated 25 October 2018;

(2)     An undated excerpt of a second petition seeking bail;

(3)     A document dated 2 November 2018 granting bail to Jaspal Singh; and

(4)     Death Certificate of Piara Singh (deceased on 5 February 2024) issued on 19 February 2024.

6.  We heard the appeal on 9 December 2025.  A Punjabi interpreter was present to provide language assistance.  During the hearing, he confirmed that he had nothing to add to his written materials.

DISCUSSION

7.  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].

8.  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)].

9.  In light of the above, it is thus incumbent on the applicant in this appeal to point out the errors in the Leave Decision with sufficient particulars and specifics.

10.  However, nowhere in his Notice of Appeal or written submissions did the applicant identify any error with specific particulars committed by the Judge.  His assertions are all general, bare and vague allegations unsupported by specific particulars or evidence.  Clearly, his assertions do not constitute viable grounds of appeal and must fail.

11.  In any event, his arguments are devoid of merit.  General and bare assertions of his fear if refouled do not constitute valid grounds of appeal: Re Saldua Dorothy Trifalgar [2022] HKCA 627 at [6].  As noted by the Judge at [21] of the Leave Decision, the assessment of evidence, Country of Origin information (“COI”) and risk of harm, state protection and viability of internal relocation are primarily within the province of the Board (and the Director) as primary decision makers.  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.  As the Judge observed at [6] ‑ [7] of the Leave Decision, the Board had given the applicant ample opportunities to present his case and thoroughly considered his claim and situation in his home country including state protection with the relevant materials and COI before him.  We see no basis to interfere with the Leave Decision.

12.  As to the documents attached to his written submissions, Document 1 and Document 4 were duly considered and rejected by the Judge as they failed to support the applicant’s case: [25] and [26] of the Leave Decision.  As to Document 2 and Document 3, the applicant failed to explain how these documents were relevant to his case and why they were adduced in such late stage.  The applicant also failed to explain how these documents satisfy the conditions under Ladd v Marshall [1954] 1 WLR 1489[1].  In any event, as the nature of Documents 2 and 3 is similar to that of Document 1, which is to demonstrate that the applicant was in custody in 2018 and was later granted bail.  But, as the Judge properly observed at [26] of the Leave Decision, this purported fact was indeed accepted by the Board, but the Board held that being a fugitive from justice the applicant was not entitled to non-refoulement claim.  Accordingly, these documents do not support the applicant’s grounds of appeal.

13.  For the above reasons, the applicant’s appeal against the Leave Decision has no merit and is dismissed.