HITIHAMY MUDIYANSELAGE HIRANTHA BANDARA v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

CACV 792/2025, [2026] HKCA 396

On Appeal From [2025] HKCFI 4005

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 792 OF 2025

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 3268 OF 2019)

________________________

_____________________

_______________

J U D G M E N T

_______________

The Court:

INTRODUCTION

1.  This is the Applicant’s appeal against the order of DHCJ K.W. Lung (“the Judge”) dated 12 September 2025 (“the Order”) refusing to grant leave to apply for judicial review of the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office (“the Board”) dated 14 September 2018 (“the Board’s Decision”).

BACKGROUND

2.  The Applicant is a national of Sri Lanka. On 28 December 2015, the Applicant lodged a non-refoulement claim on the basis that, if refouled, he would be harmed or killed by S.B. Dissanayake (“SBD”), the minister of Social Empowerment and Welfare and his people because he refused to support SBD and he had information of SBD’s corrupt business. SBD’s supporters are afraid that he may disclose such information to the detriment of SBD. The Applicant’s non-refoulement claim was rejected by the Director of Immigration (“the Director”), and the appeal against the Director’s decision was rejected by the Board on 14 September 2018. 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.

3.  The Applicant’s application for leave to apply for judicial review was refused by the Judge on 12 September 2025. Details of the Judge’s reasons for refusing to grant leave can be found in the CALL-1 Form.

GROUNDS OF APPEAL

4.  In the Notice of Appeal filed on 25 September 2025, the Applicant states the following ground:

“I am writing this ground regarding my present situation, and still I have life threaten in my country and I gave some document during my interview too, and I will try my best to obtain my more document before my oral hearing. Some incident happent to my family too.”

5.  In the written submission filed on 19 January 2026, the Applicant argues that:

(1)  His enemies are still looking for him.

(2)  Some unknown people went to his home to make trouble and ask his wife and children about him.

6.  The appeal was heard on 27 February 2026. The applicant attended the hearing with the assistance of a Sinhalese interpreter and wished to submit a police report.

LEGAL PRINCIPLES

7.  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 was a fresh application for judicial review (see Nupur Mst v Director of Immigration [2018] HKCA 524, at §14(6)).

8.  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 below will not intervene by way of judicial review unless there are errors of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the decision of the Board: Re Kartini [2019] HKCA 1022.

DISCUSSION & DISPOSITION

9.  The matters raised in the Applicant’s Notice of Appeal and written submission are merely bare allegations without any meaningful particulars. They do not constitute any valid grounds of appeal against the Judge’s decision.

10.  The Applicant has failed to identify and substantiate any error in the Judge’s decision refusing to grant leave to apply for judicial review, or raise any viable ground of appeal against the Order.

11.  The Applicant’s appeal has no merit, and is dismissed.