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

CACV 693/2025, [2026] HKCA 181

On appeal from [2025] HKCFI 3622

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 693 OF 2025

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 571 OF 2020)

________________________

BETWEEN

_____________________

_____________________

JUDGMENT

_____________________

The Court:

Introduction

1.  This is the applicant’s appeal against the order of Deputy High Court Judge (Non-refoulement Claims) YW Hew (“the Judge”) dated 22 August 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 30 March 2020 (“the Board’s Decision”).

Background

2.  The applicant is a national of India. On 22 April 2016, he lodged a non-refoulement claim on the basis that, if refouled, he would be harmed or killed by his uncle, Sukdev Singh, because of a land dispute. Details of the applicant’s claim have been summarized in the Board’s Decision, the hyperlink to which can be found in the CALL-1 Form.

3.  By a Notice of Decision dated 2 January 2018 (“the Director’s Decision”), the Director of Immigration (“the Director”) rejected the applicant’s non-refoulement claim on all applicable grounds, namely: risk of torture,[1] BOR 2 risk[2], BOR 3 risk[3], and persecution risk[4].

4.  The applicant appealed the Director’s Decision to the Board. The Board dismissed the applicant’s appeal, and confirmed the Director’s Decision. Details of the Board’s reasoning and findings can be found in the Board’s Decision.

The Judge’s decision

5.  On 9 April 2020, the Applicant filed a Form 86 to apply for leave to apply for judicial review of the Board’s Decision. He did not advance any grounds for judicial review in the Form 86. In the supporting affirmation of the same date, he stated that he was not satisfied with the Board’s Decision, and repeated his claimed fear of harm.

6.  The Judge gave the decision refusing to grant leave to apply for judicial review for the reasons that the Board did assess the applicant’s claim as raised, and in particular, the Board was entitled to come to its own conclusion based on the available information before it. The Judge held that there was no error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality found in the Board’s Decision, and that the applicant had also failed to demonstrate any of the same. Details of the Judge’s reasoning and findings can be found in the CALL-1 Form.

Grounds of appeal

7.  In the Notice of Appeal filed on 4 September 2025, the applicant states that he does not agree with the decision of the Judge, that he wants to challenge the Judge’s findings that there was no error of proceeding, as he can show there were many errors committed by the Board, and that his application should not be refused.

8.  The applicant has failed to lodge written submissions in support of his appeal in accordance with the directions given by the Registrar of Civil Appeals on 2 December 2025. Accordingly, he is deemed to have waived the right to have an oral hearing of his appeal and elected to have his appeal disposed of on paper. Having considered the documents before us, we consider that it is appropriate to deal with the applicant’s appeal on paper without an oral hearing.

Legal principles

9.  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: Nupur Mst v Director of Immigration [2018] HKCA 524, at §14(6).

10.  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

11.  The matters raised in the applicant’s Notice of Appeal are mere general and bald assertions regarding the decisions of the Board and the Judge, without explanations, particulars or reasons in support. They do not constitute any valid grounds of appeal against the Order. The applicant has simply failed to identify or show any error in the Order refusing to grant leave to apply for judicial review, or raise any viable ground of appeal against the Order. There is also no error of law or procedural unfairness or irrationality in the decision of the Board in the present case.

12.  The applicant’s appeal has no merit, and is dismissed.