WEERASINGHE PATHIRIYAGE DEEPA CHANDRANI v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

CACV 1076/2025, [2026] HKCA 1246

On Appeal From [2025] HKCFI 5398

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 1076 OF 2025

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 1016 OF 2020)

________________________

________________________

________________

J U D G M E N T

________________

Hon Chow JA (giving the Judgment of the Court):

1.  This is the Applicant’s appeal against the order of Deputy High Court Judge Levy (“the Judge”) dated 19 November 2025 (“the Order”) refusing to grant leave to the Applicant to apply for judicial review of two decisions of the Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office (“the Board”) both dated 8 May 2020, whereby the Board dismissed the Applicant’s appeals against the decisions of the Director of Immigration (“the Director”) dated 5 February 2014 (in respect of torture risk) and 29 October 2018 (in respect of BOR 2 risk, BOR 3 risk and persecution risk) respectively.

2.  The Applicant alleges that, if refouled to Sri Lanka, she will be harmed or killed by a district councilor in the district where she lived and by the government of Sri Lanka because the councilor believed that she was the one who spread a rumour about the councilor having an extra-marital affair before an election held in April 2004, and he accused her of being a secret agent working for Liberation Tigers of Tamil Elam which was recognised by the Sri Lankan government as a terrorist group[1].  The Applicant’s background, the basis of her claim, the findings of the Board and its reasons for dismissing her respective appeals against the Director’s decisions have been set out in detail in the two decisions of the Board referred to by the Judge in her decision (see §1 of the CALL-1 Form).  We do not propose to repeat them here.

3.  The Judge’s reasons for dismissing the Applicant’s leave application in respect of the Board’s decisions are set out at §§5-9 of the CALL-1 Form.  In gist, the Judge found that the Applicant did not put forth any grounds for her intended challenge against the Board’s decisions, and held that her intended judicial review was not reasonably arguable in any event.

THIS APPEAL

4.  In her Notice of Appeal filed on 24 November 2025, the Applicant raises 5 grounds of appeal, which may be summarised as follows:

(1)  Ground 1 – the Judge failed to properly consider the risk of harm that she would face from a specific political figure in Sri Lanka.

(2)  Ground 2 – the Judge failed to hold that there was procedural unfairness in the Board’s decisions as a result of its failure to take into account the changing political situation in Sri Lanka in assessing the risk of harm she would face there.

(3)  Ground 3 – the Judge erred in failing to hold that the Board did not properly or sufficiently consider her credibility and the evidence she presented.

(4)  Ground 4 – in dismissing her leave application, the Judge failed to give comprehensive reasons covering the specific grounds she had raised to substantiate her claim.

(5)  Ground 5 – the Judge erred in holding that there were no errors of law or procedural unfairness in the Board’s decisions and failing to pay due regard to the threat to her personal safety and the political persecution in her home country.

5.  The Applicant has failed to lodge written submissions in support of her appeal in accordance with the directions given by the Registrar of Civil Appeals on 4 June 2026.  Accordingly, she is deemed to have waived the right to have an oral hearing of her appeal and elected to have her appeal disposed of on paper.  Having considered the documents before us, we consider that it is appropriate to deal with the Applicant’s appeal on paper without an oral hearing.

DISCUSSION

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)).

7.  Further, 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, at §13.  No such error of law or procedural unfairness or irrationality in the decisions of the Board is shown in the present case.

8.  The matters raised in her grounds of appeal are new points which were not raised in her leave application below.  No good ground has been shown which would justify permitting the Applicant to raise these new points for the first time in the Court of Appeal.  In any event, they are general allegations without particulars, and do not constitute valid grounds of appeal against the Judge’s decision. 

9.  For the sake of completeness, we shall deal with the 5 grounds of appeal briefly. 

10.  Among those grounds of appeal, Grounds 1 to 3 and also 5 relate to matters that fall within the province of the Board.  We agree with the Judge’s holding at §9 of her decision that the Board was entitled to conclude that the Applicant’s claimed risks of harm could not be substantiated by any credible evidence.  The Board reached its conclusion by taking into account, amongst other matters, the change of political situation in Sri Lanka (see §52 of the Board’s 1^st decision and §60 of the Board’s 2^nd decision).  The Board also held that even if her evidence was accepted, state protection would be available to her and she could also reasonably relocate to other parts of Sri Lanka to reduce or negate the alleged risks of harm or persecution (see §§62 and 72 of the Board’s 1^st decision, and §§70 and 82 of the Board’s 2^nd decision).  We see no valid basis to interfere with the Board’s assessment of the Applicant’s claim.  None of these 4 grounds has any merit.

11.  Ground 4 has no validity.  To begin with, there was no specific ground put forward by the Applicant in support of her leave application in the proceedings below.  There is thus no basis to suggest that the Judge failed to deal with the specific arguments raised by her.  Despite the lack of specific grounds of judicial review advanced by the Applicant, the Judge proceeded to examine the Board’s decisions and found no error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality in both decisions.  We are satisfied that the Judge gave proper and adequate reasons for dismissing the Applicant’s leave application. 

12.  The Applicant has failed to raise any viable ground of appeal against the Order. 

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