NONTATHEN CHARANRAT v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE
[2026] HKCA 1514 · CACV 713/2026
Court of Appeal
CACV 713/2026, [2026] HKCA 1514
On Appeal From [2026] HKCFI 3532
IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
COURT OF APPEAL
CIVIL APPEAL NO 713 OF 2026
(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 1495 OF 2023)
__________________________
BETWEEN
| |NONTATHEN CHARANRAT |Applicant |
| |and | |
| |TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD/ |Putative |
| |NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE |Respondent |
| |and | |
| |DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION |Putative |
| | |Interested Party|
__________________________
Before: Hon Barma JA and Mimmie Chan J in Court
Date of Hearing: 18 August 2026
Date of Judgment: 1 September 2026
________________
J U D G M E N T
________________
Hon Mimmie Chan J (giving the Judgment of the Court):
1. This is an appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge
Michael Wong (“the Judge”) given on 17 June 2026[1] (“the Leave
Decision”) refusing to grant leave for the applicant to apply for
judicial review. The intended judicial review[2] was against the
decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board/adjudicator of the Non-
Refoulement Claims Petition Office (“the Board”) dated 15 August
2023 (“the Board’s Decision”) dismissing the applicant’s appeal
against the decision of the Director of Immigration dated 18 July
2022 rejecting the applicant’s non-refoulement claim.
2. The applicant’s background, the basis of her claim and the Board’s
reasons in reaching the Board’s Decision have been set out
therein[3] as well as by the Judge in the Leave Decision at [16]-
[21], which will not be repeated.
3. The applicant did not request for an oral hearing for the leave
application. After considering the documents filed by the
applicant, the Judge dismissed the application for the reasons
stated at [12]-[25] of the Leave Decision.
Appeal to this court
4. In a Notice of Appeal dated 29 June 2026, the applicant stated
without elaboration or particulars that “the decisions are
unlawful”, “the decisions failed to take into account many things
and issues”, and that her life would be in danger should she be
refouled.
5. By written submissions dated 20 July 2026, the applicant repeated
her personal background and the factual basis to her claim.
Insofar as is relevant to the Board’s Decision, the applicant
contended that the Board failed to make “sufficient enquiring
before finalising the determination”, and that as a torture
claimant she had limited “options at [her] disposal” to obtain
evidence for the purpose of substantiating her claim.
6. We heard the appeal on 18 August 2026, at which the applicant was
absent. We will therefore determine the appeal on the basis of the
materials already filed with the Court.
Discussion
7. As this court has often stated, an appeal to the Court of Appeal is
not a fresh application for judicial review. It is necessary to
identify some error on the part of the judge that would justify
this court in intervening: see Nupur Mst v Director of Immigration
[2018] HKCA 524 at [14]. 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. An
appeal is not the occasion for regurgitating arguments advanced and
rejected by the judge or for running arguments which could and
should have been raised but were not raised before the judge. In
the determination of an appeal, the Court of Appeal focuses on the
decision of the judge and the court will only reverse that decision
if an appellant could demonstrate that the judge made errors of law
or failed to take account of relevant matters already placed before
the court or was otherwise plainly wrong.
8. The applicant has failed to identify any error on the part of the
Judge and thus failed to raise any viable ground of appeal. The
points advanced by the applicant were bare assertions unsupported
by particulars or evidence.
9. In the present case, the Board considered that the material parts
of the applicant’s evidence, on which her alleged fear of harm from
a creditor due to her inability to repay a loan was based, was
lacking in credibility. The Board specifically rejected, as a
matter of fact, the applicant’s claims that she borrowed money from
the creditor and that she was threatened by the creditor because of
her default in repayment. These were factual findings open to the
Board, and were sufficiently canvassed and considered by the Judge
in the Leave Decision at [6]-[16]. We see no basis to interfere.
10. The applicant has accordingly failed to demonstrate how the Board
had acted unlawfully or procedurally unfairly in reaching its
Decision, or how such Decision could be said to be Wednesbury
unreasonable.
11. As we have noted, the applicant advanced no viable grounds of
appeal against the Judge’s decision. There is therefore no merit
in the appeal and we dismiss the appeal accordingly.
|(Aarif Barma) |(Mimmie Chan) |
|Justice of Appeal |Judge of the |
| |Court of First Instance |
The applicant, unrepresented, did not appear
-----------------------
[1] [2026] HKCFI 3532
[2] Per the Form 86 as amended by the Court on its own motion.
[3]https://legalref.judiciary.hk/doc/judg/html/vetted/other/en/2023/HCAL00
1495_2023_files/the_Board's_Decision.pdf
-----------------------
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
N
O
P
Q
R
S
T
U
V
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
N
O
P
Q
R
S
T
U
V
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
N
O
P
Q
R
S
T
U
V
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
N
O
P
Q
R
S
T
U
VCourt
Procedural posture
Issues
Holdings
Legal principles
Disposition
Appeal history
NONTATHEN CHARANRAT v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE
CA · [2026] HKCA 1514
This judgment