RANDEEP SINGH v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

CACV 988/2025, [2026] HKCA 725

On Appeal From [2025] HKCFI 5186

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 988 OF 2025

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 1994 OF 2020)

________________________

________________________

________________________

J U D G M E N T

________________________

Hon Ng J (giving the Judgment of the Court):

INTRODUCTION

1.  This is the Applicant’s appeal against the order of DHCJ Michael Wong (“the Judge”)  dated 31 October 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 6 July 2018 (“the Board’s Decision”).

BACKGROUND

2.  The Applicant came from India. At the Board’s hearing on 6 July 2018, the Applicant withdrew his appeal against the decision of the Director of Immigration (“the Director”)  dated 6 March 2018. The Board allowed his withdrawal of the appeal. However, by his Form 86 dated 5 October 2020, the Applicant sought leave to review the Board’s Decision.   The Applicant’s application for leave to apply for judicial review was refused by the Judge on 31 October 2025. Details of the Judge’s reasons for refusing to grant leave can be found in the CALL-1 Form dated 31 October 2025.

GROUNDS OF APPEAL

3.  In the Notice of Appeal filed on 10 November 2025, the Applicant stated that:

“I do not agree with the decision of the Court of First Instance, because the learned Judge Just follow the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board. I have severe problem in my home country. If I return there I will be killed by my enemies.”

4.  In the skeleton argument filed on 16 March 2026, apart from reiterating his non-refoulement claim, the Applicant submits inter alia that:

(1)  The Judge’s decision to refuse his appeal was unreasonable.

(2)  The Judge failed to apply the principle of irrationality.

(3)  The Judge’s decision has real and significant implications for his substantive right not to be subject to torture and his right to non-refoulement protection.

5.  The Appeal was heard on 14 April 2026. The Applicant attended the hearing in person with the assistance of a Punjabi interpreter and confirmed that he had nothing further to add.

LEGAL PRINCIPLES

6.  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)).

DISCUSSION & DISPOSITION

7.  The Judge correctly upheld the Board’s Decision for there was no evidence to show that the Applicant made the withdrawal application at an oral hearing other than out of his own volition, thus the withdrawal was valid. As such, there was no error in the Board’s Decision acceding to the Applicant’s request to withdraw his appeal.

8.  The matters raised in the Applicant’s Notice of Appeal and skeleton argument are unrelated to the decisions of the Board and the Judge allowing the withdrawal of his appeal against the Director’s decision.

9.  The Applicant has failed to identify or 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. 

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