RAVINDER KUMAR v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE
[2026] HKCA 1358
Court of Appeal
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)
BETWEEN
| |RAVINDER KUMAR |Applicant |
| |and | |
| |TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / |Putative |
| |NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE |Respondent |
| |and | |
| |DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION |Putative |
| | |Interested Party |
_____________________
Before: Hon Anthony Chan JA and Ng J in Court
Date of Hearing: 28 July 2026
Date of Judgment: 12 August 2026
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.
|(Anthony Chan) |(Peter Ng) |
|Justice of Appeal |Judge of the Court of |
| |First Instance |
The Applicant, acting in person
-----------------------
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
V