MD OMAR v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

CACV 410/2025, [2026] HKCA 650

On Appeal From [2025] HKCFI 2295

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 410 OF 2025

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 290 OF 2020)

________________________

_____________________

______________

J U D G M E N T

______________

The Court:

INTRODUCTION

1.  This is the Applicant’s appeal against the order of Deputy High Court Judge Levy (“the Judge”) dated 6 June 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 24 February 2020 (“the Board’s Decision”).

BACKGROUND

2.  The Applicant is a national of India. On 16 May 2019, the Applicant lodged a non-refoulement claim on the basis that, if refouled, he would be harmed or killed by his girlfriend’s father who objected to their relationship.[1]  The Applicant’s non-refoulement claim was rejected by the Director of Immigration (“the Director”) on 13 August 2019, andthe appeal against the Director’s decision was rejected by the Board on 24 February 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 6 June 2025.[2] 

3.  The Applicant’s application for leave to apply for judicial review was refused by the Judge on 6 June 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 16 June 2025, the Applicant states that:

“I wold like to tell that I was unable to submit my suporting document because when I apply the court I was detin in immigration departmen I will try my best to obtain before my oral hearing.” (sic)

5.  In the written submissions filed on 30 December 2025, apart from reiterating the non-refoulement claim that he will be harmed or killed by his enemy and the lack of state protection in his home country, the Applicant essentially argues the following that:

(1)  The Judge’s decision to refuse his appeal was unreasonable.

(2)  The Judge failed to apply the principles of irrationality and 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 failed to exercise greater care for his problems in his home country, despite the proof submitted for his claim.

(5)  The Judge failed to analyse his claim properly.

(6)  The Judge did not accept what had been refused by the Director and the Board.

(7)  The Board failed to give him sufficient chance to arrange relevant evidence for his claims and appeal.

(8)  The Board relied significantly on the source of news which is not officially recognised or is simply hearsay.

(9)  The Board’s decision was irrational for failing to evaluate and make a finding of fact as to whether there is a consistent pattern of gross and mass violation of human rights in his home country and to analyse and assess whether state protection exists in his home country, and for misdirecting himself as to the extended meaning of state protection.

6.  The above written submissions were lodged beyond the deadline imposed by the Registrar of Civil Appeals on 1 December 2025, which required him to do so on or before 23 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

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.  The matters raised in the Applicant’s Notice of Appeal and written submissions are all generalallegations without particulars. They do not relate to the Judge’s reasons for refusing to grant leave to the Applicant to apply for judicial review and do not constitute any valid grounds of appeal against the Judge’s decision.

10.  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.

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

The Applicant, unrepresented, acted in person