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

CACV 632/2026, [2026] HKCA 1358

On Appeal From [2026] HKCFI 3241

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 632 OF 2026

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 1083 OF 2021)

________________________

_____________________

_____________________

JUDGMENT

_____________________

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

INTRODUCTION

1.  This is the Applicant’s appeal against the order of DHCJ (Non-refoulement Claims) Lewis Law (“the Judge”) dated 3 June 2026 (“the Order”) refusing to grant an extension of time to file Form 86 or leave to apply for judicial review of the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office (“the Board”) dated 21 October 2020 (“the Board’s Decision”).

BACKGROUND

2.  The Applicant is a national of India. The Applicant lodged a non-refoulement claim on the basis that, if refouled, he would be harmed by the family of a female with whom he had a relationship. The Applicant’s claim was rejected by the Director of Immigration (“the Director”) on 12 November 2018, and the appeal against the Director’s decision was rejected by the Board on 21 October 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 3 June 2026. 

3.  The Applicant’s application for leave to apply for judicial review was refused by the Judge on 3 June 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 12 June 2026, the Applicant stated the following:

“I do not agree with the decision of the court of first Instance. The court did not scrutinize my claim properly Despite my proplem in my home country is very dangerous severe the court of First Instance and Torture Claim Appeal Board rejected my claims as a simply. If i return to my country, I will be killed by my enemies.” (sic)

5.  In the 4-page skeleton argument filed on 14 July 2026, apart from reiterating his non-refoulement claim, the Applicant essentially argues that:

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

(2)  The Judge failed to apply the principles of irrationality and procedural unfairness to the decisions of the Director and the Board.

(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.

(4)  The Judge reviewed his torture claims lightly.

(5)  The Judge failed to exercise greater care for his problems in her home country, despite the proof submitted for his claim.

(6)  The Judge failed to analyse his claim properly.

(7)  The Board failed to give him sufficient chance to arrange relevant evidence for his claim and appeal.

(8)  The Board relied significantly on the source of news which is not officially recognised or is simply hearsay.

(9)  The Board failed to analyse and assess whether state protection exists in his home country, and misdirected itself as to the extended meaning of state protection.

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 Judge’s decision.

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.