KUMARASINGHE HETTI ARACHCHIGE AJITH V.K. v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

CACV 793/2025, [2026] HKCA 397

On Appeal From [2025] HKCFI 4240

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 793 OF 2025

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 2767 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 To (“the Judge”) dated 16 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 13 September 2019 (“the Board’s Decision”).

BACKGROUND

2.  The Applicant is a national of Sri Lanka. The Applicant lodged a non-refoulement claim on the basis that, if refouled, he would be arrested by the Sri Lankan police and prosecuted for murder and by gangsters linked with the murder victim for revenge. The Applicant’s non-refoulement claim was rejected by the Director of Immigration (“the Director”) on 25 May 2018, and his appeal against the Director’s decision was rejected by the Board on 13 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.

3.  The Applicant’s application for leave to apply for judicial review was refused by the Judge on 16 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 wold like to tell my present situation to appeal court that, still I have problem by Sri Lanka police department and by powerfull gangsters, and I am murder acust too I will explain to court properly in my oral hearing.”

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

(1)  His enemies are still looking for him.

(2)  One of his elder brothers was hit by a police vehicle and died, and another committed suicide for unknown reasons. His other sibling said it could also happen to him.

6.  The appeal was heard on 27 February 2026. The Applicant attended the hearing with the assistance of a Sinhalese interpreter and added that his brother was dead and no one knew how it happened. His life would be in danger if he were to return to Sri Lanka.

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.