MANJINDER SINGH v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD

CACV 844/2025, [2026] HKCA 812

On appeal from [2025] HKCFI 4439

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 844 OF 2025

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 348 OF 2020)

__________________________

BETWEEN

__________________________

________________

JUDGMENT

________________

The Court:

INTRODUCTION

1.  This is the applicant’s appeal against the order of Deputy High Court Judge Michael Wong (“the Judge”) dated 23 September 2025,[1] 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 2 March 2020 (“the Board’s Decision”) whereby the Board dismissed his appeal against the decision of the Director of Immigration (“the Director”) dated 3 September 2018 (“the Director’s Decision”).

BACKGROUND

2.  The applicant is a national of India. He lodged a non-refoulement claim with the Immigration Department on the basis that, if refouled, he would be harmed or killed by Gurdiyal Singh and his friends because of a land dispute. The applicant’s non-refoulement claim was rejected by the Director, and his appeal against it was rejected by the Board. 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 23 September 2025 (“the Form CALL-1”).

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 Form CALL-1.

GROUNDS OF APPEAL

4.  By a notice of appeal filed on 6 October 2025, the applicant sought to appeal the Judge’s decision to this court. For the grounds of appeal, the applicant stated that (sic) :-

1. The Director’s Decision, it was evident that the director has failed to appreciate or give the proper importance or weightage to the presence of state Acquiescence in the applicant’s case. This has indeed led to an unfair outcome of the applicants non-refoulement claim.

2. The Applicant submit that the Director, the Adjudicator and the Court have failed to take such arguments into account or that the Director has failed to give sufficient weight to such argument before reaching the Decision.

3. The Adjudicator failed to make sufficient enquiring before finalizing the determination. The Adjudicator stated that the applicant had failed to advice any credible evidence to prove material elements of his claim.

4. Surprisingly, the director in applicant Decision while referring to relevant COI’s kept including meaning which suited the applicant pre-conceived conclusion. This was a clean case of unfair attitude shown by the Director which in itself is enough to render the applicant’s decision.

5. The grounds of this appeal are that the gravity of the applicant circumstances has noted been weighed or realized by both putative Respondents while considering the application’s non-refoulement claim. The applicant should be given an opportunity to plead her case properly.

5.  The appeal was scheduled to be heard on 11 March 2026. The applicant has failed to lodge any skeleton argument in support of his appeal in accordance with the directions given by the Registrar of Civil Appeals on 15 January 2026. Accordingly, the applicant is deemed to have waived his right to have an oral hearing of the appeal, and elected to have the appeal disposed of on paper. The applicant was informed of the same by the court’s letter dated 12 February 2026.

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.  In the present case, the Judge found no error of law or procedural unfairness or irrationality in the decision of the Board. The mere assertions as stated in the grounds of appeal, which are not substantiated, do not constitute any viable grounds of appeal either and lack substance. We see no basis to interfere with the Judge’s decision.

9.  For the above reasons, the applicant’s appeal is devoid of merits. We dismiss it accordingly.

The applicant, unrepresented, acted in person