SUKHDEV SINGH v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

CACV 730/2025, [2026] HKCA 445

On Appeal From [2025] HKCFI 3353

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 730 OF 2025

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 3297 OF 2019)

________________________

BETWEEN

_____________________

_____________________

JUDGMENT

_____________________

The Court:

INTRODUCTION

1.  This is the Applicant’s appeal against the order of Deputy High Court Judge KW Lung (“the Judge”) dated 2 September 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 October 2019 (“the Board’s Decision”).

BACKGROUND

2.  The Applicant is a national of India. On 16 May 2016, the Applicant lodged a non-refoulement claim on the basis that, if refouled, he would be harmed or killed by his enemies due to a land dispute, and he was also afraid that because his enemies belonged to the highest caste in India and were strongly against the relationship between his girlfriend and himself.[1] The Applicant’s non-refoulement claim was rejected by the Director of Immigration (“the Director”) on 27 December 2018, and the appeal against the Director’s decision was rejected by the Board on 25 October 2019. Details of the Board’s reasons for rejecting the Applicant’s application for late filing can be found in the Board’s Decision, the hyperlink to which can be found in the CALL-1 Form dated 2 September 2025.[2]

3.  The Applicant’s application for leave to apply for judicial review was refused by the Judge on 2 September 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 12 September 2025, the Applicant principally complains of the lack of language and legal assistance being provided to him. The Applicant also complains that the Judge did not consider any matter and errors of the Board’s Decision, and that the Judge refused to hold a hearing.

5.  In the 5-page written submissions lodged on 22 January 2026, the Applicant reiterates that an absence of language and legal assistance is inconsistent with procedural fairness. The Applicant also contends that the court should “lower the legal test” in non-refoulement cases when applying “anxious scrutiny”, that the Judge should give fuller reasons for rejecting his leave application for judicial review, and that the court should allow him more time to file a supplemental statement with interpretation assistance.

6.  At the hearing on 27 February 2026, the Applicant had nothing to add.

DISCUSSION & DISPOSITION

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.

9.  Contrary to the complaint of not having a hearing, the Applicant did attend a hearing in open court where he told the Judge that he did not know if the Board’s Decision was wrong,[3] and he failed to raise any valid ground to challenge the Board’s Decision.[4] In such circumstances, the Judge found that the Applicant had failed to show that he had any realistic prospect of success in his proposed judicial review of the Board’s Decision.[5] In our view, the Judge did provide sufficient reasons for rejecting the Applicant’s leave application.

10.  Regarding the lack of legal and language assistance, it has been repeatedly emphasised by this Court that as a matter of law, a non-refoulement claimant is not entitled to free legal representation at all stages of the process and that the high standard of fairness required by law does not entail interpretation service being made available to an applicant all the time as he desires: Re Pante Luisa Tuppil [2025] HKCA 1123 at [11].

11.  The matters raised in the Applicant’s Notice of Appeal and written submissions are all general allegations without particulars. They do not constitute any valid grounds of appeal against the Judge’s decision.

12.  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.

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