LIMBU SARMILA v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

CACV 313/2025, [2026] HKCA 341

On Appeal From [2025] HKCFI 1821

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 313 OF 2025

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 97 OF 2020)

________________________

_____________________

_______________

J U D G M E N T

_______________

The Court:

INTRODUCTION

1.  This is the Applicant’s appeal against the order of DHCJ Michael Wong (“the Judge”) dated 12 May 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 19 December 2019 (“the Board’s Decision”).

BACKGROUND

2.  The Applicant is a citizen of Nepal. The Applicant lodged a non-refoulement claim on the basis of her fear that, if refouled, she would be harmed by her former mother-in-law and her family as she opposed her Christianity. The Applicant’s non-refoulement claim was rejected by the Director of Immigration (“the Director”) on 9 January 2019, and the appeal against the Director’s decision was rejected by the Board on 19 December 2019. 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.

3.  The Applicant’s application for leave to apply for judicial review was refused by the Judge on 12 May 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 dated 20 May 2025, the Applicant principally complains of a lack of language and legal assistance being provided to her. She also disputes the Judge’s decision on the grounds of error of law and procedural unfairness.

5.  In the 4-page skeleton submissions filed on 22 January 2026, the Applicant reiterated the complaint of lacking in legal and language assistance. She disputes the Judge’s decision on grounds of procedural unfairness.

6.  The appeal was heard on 25 February 2026. The Applicant attended the hearing with the assistance of a Nepali interpreter and had nothing to add.

LEGAL PRINCIPLES

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 below will not intervene by way of judicial review unless there are errors of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the decision of the Board: Re Kartini[2019] HKCA 1022.

DISCUSSION & DISPOSITION

9.  We are unpersuaded by the Applicant’s complaint of lack of legal and language assistance. As a matter of law, a non-refoulement claimant is not entitled to free legal representation at all stages of the process, and the high standard of fairness required by law would not entail an interpretation service to be made available at any time as the applicant desired. See Re Gurnishan Singh[2018] HKCA 704 at §§11 and 13. It is further noted that the Applicant was able to, either by herself or with assistance from others, lodge with the court documents written in comprehensible English.

10.  The matters raised in the Applicant’s Notice of Appeal and skeleton submissions are all general allegations. They do not constitute any valid grounds of appeal against the Judge’s decision.

11.  The Applicant has failed to identify or substantiate 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.

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

The Applicant, acting in person