BHANDARI JAGDEVI HUSSNAYA v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

CACV 477/2025, [2026] HKCA 339

On appeal from [2025] HKCFI 2380

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 477 OF 2025

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO. 3989 OF 2019)

__________________________

__________________________

_______________

J U D G M E N T

_______________

The Court:

INTRODUCTION

1.  This is the applicant’s appeal against the judgment and the order of Deputy High Court Judge K. W. Lung (“the Judge”) dated 9 July 2025[1](“the Judgment” and “the Order” respectively) 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 4 October 2019 (“the Board’s Decision”).

BACKGROUND

2.  The applicant is a national of India. Her non-refoulement claim was put on the basis that, if refouled, she would be harmed or killed by the family members of her brother-in-law over a land dispute. The applicant’s non-refoulement claim was rejected by the Director on 6 September 2018, and her appeal against the Director’s decision was rejected by the Board. The Judge has summarized the applicant’s background, claim and process before the Director and the Board in the Judgment.

3.  The applicant’s application for leave to apply for judicial review was refused by the Judge and details of the Judge’s reasons for refusing to grant leave can be found in the Judgment.

GROUNDS OF APPEAL

4.  By a notice of appeal filed on 9 July 2025, the applicant sought to appeal the Judge’s decision to this court. For the grounds of appeal, the applicant stated that “I am disagree with the decision maker authorities. The Decision made by the Director of Immegration as well as the decision made by the Torture Claim Appeal Board. The High Court did not find find any error of proceeding. I do not think my claim determined fairly”.

5.  The appeal was heard on 24 February 2026. The applicant attended the hearing in person with the assistance of a Hindi interpreter and had nothing further to add.

6.  In the applicant’s skeleton argument lodged on 21 January 2026, she argued that:

(1)  the Director had failed to appreciate or give proper weight to state acquiescence in her case; 

(2)  the authorities acted discriminatorily in quickly disposing non-refoulement cases;

(3)  the Board acted unreasonably and was procedurally unfair by placing too much reliance on the Country of Origin information (“COI”) but failed to take into account her personal background and experience; 

(4)  the Director failed to place sufficient weight on her COI which “supported the aversions that the police in his country would not be able to protect”.

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.  In the present case, no error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the decision of the Board was detected by the Judge or was pointed out by the applicant apart from the bare assertions as stated in her grounds of appeal and in her skeleton argument.

10.  It is incumbent on the applicant to point out the Judge's errors with sufficient particulars. In our view, the matters set out in the applicant’s notice of appeal and skeleton argument failed to identify any error on the part of the Judge. They do not constitute any viable grounds of appeal and lack substance. We see no basis to interfere with the Judge’s decision.

11.  For the above reasons, the applicant’s appeal is devoid of merits. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal.

The Applicant, acting in person