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

CACV 618/2025, [2026] HKCA 162

On appeal from [2025] HKCFI 3481

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 618 OF 2025

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 364 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 Michael Wong (“the Judge”) dated 6 August 2025 (“the Order”) refusing to grant leave to apply for judicial review of the decisions of the Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office (“the Board”) dated 24 January 2020 (“the Board’s Decision”).

Background

2.  The applicant is a national of India.[1] On 23 September 2015, the applicant lodged a non-refoulement claim on the basis that, if refouled, he would be harmed or killed by a person named Atul Sharma for his refusal to convert from Christianity to Hinduism.[2]The applicant’s non-refoulement claim was rejected by the Director of Immigration (“the Director”) on 12 June 2017, and the appeal against the Director’s decision was rejected by the Board on 24 January 2020.[3] Details of the applicant’s claim and the Board’s reasons for rejecting the applicant’s appeals can be found in the Board’s decisions, the hyperlinks to which can be found in the CALL-1 Form dated 6 August 2025.[4]

3.  The applicant’s application for leave to apply for judicial review was refused by the Judge on 6 August 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 18 August 2025, the applicant states the following that:

(1)  The Director failed to appreciate state acquiescence.

(2)  The Director, the Board and the Court failed to give weight to such argument (state acquiescence).

(3)  The Board failed to make sufficient enquiry before making its decision.

(4)  The Director while referring to relevant country of origin information kept including meaning which suited the applicant’s pre-conceived conclusion.

(5)  The gravity of the Applicant’s circumstances has noted been weighed or realised.

5.  In the 3-page written submissions lodged on 16 December 2025, the applicant recited a number of cases and made generic submissions on the general principles of law relating to non-refoulement claims. At the hearing, the applicant said he is now married to a Chinese woman and would like more time to process his dependant visa. But that has nothing to do with his appeal. Otherwise, he had nothing to add by way of oral submissions.

Legal principles

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.

Discussion & disposition

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

9.  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.

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

The applicant appeared in person