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

CACV 388/2025, [2026] HKCA 783

On Appeal From [2025] HKCFI 2211

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 388 OF 2025

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 472 OF 2020)

________________________

_____________________

________________________

JUDGMENT

________________________

The Court:

INTRODUCTION

1.  This is the Applicant’s appeal against the order of Deputy High Court Judge Levy (“the Judge”) dated 4 June 2025, 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 10 October 2019 (“the Board’s Decision”).

BACKGROUND

2.  The Applicant is a national of India.  On 17 November 2016, the Applicant lodged a non-refoulement claim on the basis that, if refouled, he would be harmed or killed by his paternal uncle who wished to take away the farmland of his father.[1]  The Applicant’s claim was rejected by the Director of Immigration (“the Director”) on 28 February 2018, and the appeal against the Director’s decision was rejected by the Board on 10 October 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, the hyperlink to which can be found in the Form CALL-1 dated 4 June 2025.[2] 

3.  The Applicant’s application for leave to apply for judicial review was refused by the Judge on 4 June 2025.  Details of the Judge’s reasons for refusing to grant leave can be found in the Form CALL-1. 

GROUNDS OF APPEAL

4.  In the Notice of Appeal filed on 10 June 2025, the Applicant states that:

“a) The learned judge had failed to consider all applicable grounds of non-refoulement and the consequence of me returning to India,

b) The learned Judge was wrong expecting that I should be able to put forward my case in the absence of proper legal representation, knowing that I didn’t had the representation, the learned judge should have applied all relevant limits on my case accordingly based on her knowledge,

c) The finding by the learned Judge that the Adjudicator’s decision to be without fault were irrational,

d) The learned Judge refused to grant me a leave was wrong because I was indeed detained in Stanley Prison.” (sic)

5.  The Applicant has failed to lodge written submissions in support of the appeal in accordance with the directions given by the Registrar of Civil Appeals on 27 December 2025.  Accordingly, the Applicant is deemed to have waived the right to have an oral hearing of the appeal and elect to have the 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.

DISCUSSION & DISPOSITION

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.  

8.  Regarding the lack oflegal 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].

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

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

[1]Form CALL-1, §3.

[2] Hyperlink to the Board’s Decision in Form CALL-1, §1.