KANWALDEESH SINGH v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD

CACV 714/2025, [2026] HKCA 165

On appeal from [2025] HKCFI 3599

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 714 OF 2025

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 349 OF 2020)

________________________

_____________________

_______________

J U D G M E N T

_______________

The Court:

Introduction

1.  This is the applicant’s appeal against the order of Deputy High Court Judge Michael Wong (“the Judge”) dated 12 August 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 25 February 2020 (“the Board’s Decision”).

Background

2.  The applicant is a national of India.[1] On 6 September 2013, the applicant lodged a non-refoulement claim on the basis that, if refouled, he would be harmed or killed by his former business partner and his associates because they believed he had informed the police that his former business partner had illegal weapons.[2]  The applicant’s non-refoulement claim was rejected by the Director of Immigration (“the Director”) on 31 July 2018, and the appeal against the Director’s decision was rejected by the Board on 25 February 2020. 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 12 August 2025.[3]

3.  The applicant’s application for leave to apply for judicial review was refused by the Judge on 12 August 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 9 September 2025, the applicant states that:

(1)  The Director failed to appreciate state acquiescence.

(2)   The Director, the Board and the Court failed to give weight to such argument (state acquiescence).

(3)  The Board failed to make sufficient enquiry before making its decision.

(4)  The Director while referring to relevant country of origin information kept including meaning which suited the applicant’s pre-conceived conclusion.

(5)  The gravity of the applicant’s circumstances has not been weighed or realised.

5.  In the skeleton arguments lodged on 9 December 2025, the applicant essentially argues that:

(1)  The Director, the Board and the Judge failed to properly consider the issue of state acquiescence.

(2)  The decision-makers and the Judge failed to consider the applicant’s evidence and arguments.

(3)  The Board failed to make sufficient enquiry and the Judge failed to assess whether the process met the standard of procedural fairness.

(4)  The Director and the Board misinterpreted country of origin information in a manner that supported a pre-determined conclusion.

(5)  The Director and the Judge failed to consider the seriousness of the applicant’s circumstances.

(6)  The Judge failed to consider relevant matters, adopted an incorrect legal approach, or reached an irrational conclusion constitutes a reviewable error.

6.  At the oral hearing, the applicant had nothing to say.

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 & disposition

9.  The matters raised in the applicant’s Notice of Appeal and skeleton arguments are all general allegations without particulars. They do not relate to the Judge’s reasons for refusing to grant leave to the applicant to apply for judicial review and do not constitute any valid grounds of appeal against the Judge’s decision. Furthermore, general assertions of fear if refouled do not constitute proper grounds of appeal: Re Saldua Dorothy Trifalgar [2022] HKCA 627 at [6].

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.