SIVALINGAM MANOJ KUMAR v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

CACV 174/2026, [2026] HKCA 939

On Appeal From [2026] HKCFI 974

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 174 OF 2026

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 1367 OF 2025)

________________________

BETWEEN

_____________________

_____________________

JUDGMENT

_____________________

Deputy High Court Judge Yuen (giving the Judgment of the Court) :

INTRODUCTION

1.  This is the Applicant’s appeal against the order of DHCJ K.W. Lung (“the Judge”) dated 13 February 2026 (“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 30 May 2025 (“the Board’s Decision”).

BACKGROUND

2.  The Applicant is a national of India. On 17 September 2024, the Applicant lodged a non-refoulement claim on the basis that, if refouled, he would be harmed or killed by his neighbor over a land dispute.[1] The Applicant’s claim was rejected by the Director of Immigration (“the Director”) on 11 February 2025, and the appeal against the Director’s decision was rejected by the Board on 30 May 2025. 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 13 February 2026.[2]

3.  The Applicant’s application for leave to apply for judicial review was refused by the Judge on 13 February 2026. 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 26 February 2026, the Applicant states the following:

“THE HIGH COURT DID NOT CONSIDER MY J.R. ADJUDICATOR DID NOT GIVE ME CORRECT DECISION. HIS DECISION IS FULL OF WRONG. PLEASE GRANT MY LEAVE.” (sic)

5.  In the skeleton argument filed on 9 April 2026, apart from reiterating his non-refoulement claim, the Applicant essentially argues that:

(1) Any discrepancies in his account are not material to the core of his claim, and the central issue remains consistent.

(2) The Applicant has a genuine and well-founded fear that he will be subject to harm if returned.

(3) Any inconsistencies should be considered in light of the stress, trauma, and fear that the Applicant has experienced.

(4) The Applicant does not have access to effective state protection in his home country.

(5) Given the influence and connections of the individual involved, relocation within the Applicant’s home country is not viable.

(6) The Applicant suffers from asthma and related health conditions.

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)).

7.  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

8.  The matters raised in the Applicant’s Notice of Appeal and skeleton argument are all general allegations without particulars. They do not constitute any valid grounds of appeal against the Order.

9.  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.

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