HOLLU PATHIRAGE JANAKA CHAMINDA KALDERA v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

CACV 350/2025, [2026] HKCA 640

On Appeal From [2025] HKCFI 1980

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO.350 OF 2025

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO. 3797 OF 2019)

________________________

________________________

________________________

J U D G M E N T

________________________

Hon Anthony Chan JA (giving the Judgment of the Court)  :

Introduction

1.  This is the Applicant’s appeal against the order of Deputy High Court Judge (Non-refoulement Claims)  Philips Wong (“Judge”)  dated 15 May 2025 (“Order”)  refusing to grant leave to apply for judicial review of the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office (“Board”)  dated 11 July 2019 (“Board’s Decision”).

Background

2.  The Applicant is a national of Sri Lanka. On 3 November 2013, the Applicant lodged a non-refoulement claim on the basis that, if refouled, he would be harmed or killed by the Sri Lanka Freedom Party, the Sri Lankan state and/or non-state actors because of his work with the United National Party (“UNP”), particularly finding jobs for UNP supporters and campaigning for the UNP[1]. The Applicant’s claim was rejected by the Director of Immigration (“the Director”)  on 14 August 2018, and the appeal against the Director’s decision was rejected by the Board on 11 July 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 CALL-1 Form dated 15 May 2025[2]. 

3.  The Applicant’s application for leave to apply for judicial review was refused by the Judge on 15 May 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 29 May 2025, the Applicant states the following grounds :

“1. The Director’s Decision, it was evident that the director has failed to appreciate or give the proper importance or weightage to the presence of state Acquiescence in the applicant’s case. This has indeed led to an unfair outcome of rejecting applicants non-refoulement claim.

2. The Applicant submit that the Director, the Adjudicator and the Court have failed to take such argument into account or that the Director has failed to give sufficient weight to such argument before reaching the Decision.

3. The Adjudicator failed to make sufficient enquiring before finalizing the determination. The Adjudicator stated that the applicant had failed to advice any credible evidence to prove material elements of [his] claim.

4. Surprisingly, the director in applicant Decision while referring to relevant COI’s kept including meaning which suited the applicant pre-conceived conclusion. This was a clean case of unfair attitude shown by the Director which in itself is enough to render the applicant’s decision.

5. The grounds of this appeal are that the gravity of the applicant circumstances has [not] been weighed or realized by both putative Respondents while considering the application’s non-refoulement claim. The applicant should be given an opportunity to plead [his] case properly.” (sic)

5.  In the written submissions filed on 19 March 2026, the Applicant reiterates the general principles about the “high standards of fairness” required in determination of a torture claim on the part of the decision maker.  The Applicant also argues that the Adjudicator acted in a procedurally unfair manner in dealing with the Applicant’s application without properly assessing his credibility but no details are given.  No arguments are advanced as to how the Judge had erred.

6.  The Applicant did not appear at the hearing of this appeal.

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 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: Re Kartini [2019] HKCA 1022. 

Discussion and Disposition

9.  All the matters raised in the Applicant’s Notice of Appeal and written submissions are general allegations without particulars. They do not constitute any valid grounds of appeal against the Judge’s decision.

10.  The Applicant has failed to identify or show 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 with no order as to costs.