Re Saini

CACV 194/2025, [2026] HKCA 46

On Appeal From [2025] HKCFI 1277

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 194 OF 2025

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 103 OF 2020)

_______________

_______________

_______________

J U D G M E N T

_______________

Hon Au JA (giving the Judgment of the Court):

1.This is the applicant’s appeal against the order of Deputy High Court Judge Michael Wong (“the Judge”) dated 2 April 2025 ([2025] HKCFI 1277) (“the Leave Decision”) refusing her application for leave to apply for judicial review (“the Leave Application”) against  the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office (“the Board”) dated 24 December 2019 (“the Board’s Decision”), whereby the Board dismissed her appeal against the decision of the Director of Immigration (“the Director”) dated 4 March 2019, refusing her non-refoulement claim.

2.The appeal was listed to be heard on 9 December 2025.  The applicant was directed to lodge two sets of skeleton argument on or before 11 November 2025 and was warned that if she failed to do so, she would be deemed to have waived her right to have an oral hearing for the appeal and the hearing date would be vacated with the appeal being determined on paper.  The directions and the warning were communicated to the applicant by the Notice of Hearing dated 30 October 2025.  However, the applicant did not lodge any skeleton argument in support of her appeal.

3.As the applicant failed to lodge a skeleton argument by the stipulated time, she was deemed to have waived her right to have an oral hearing and elected to have her appeal disposed of on paper.  The hearing date was thus vacated on 12 November 2025.

4.The applicant’s background, the basis of her claim and arguments advanced before the Board as well as the Board’s reasons for rejecting her appeal are all set out in the Board’s Decision: see [1] and [4] of the Leave Decision.  The Judge has also set out in detail his reasons for refusing the Leave Application: see [5] ‑ [20] of the Leave Decision.  We will not repeat the details herein.

5.By the Notice of Appeal filed on 14 April 2025, the applicant complained that the Director had failed to appreciate or give proper importance or weight to the presence of state acquiescence in her case.  She further complained that the Board failed to make sufficient enquiries before finalising the determination.  The applicant also complained that the Director’s Decision was unfair, in that the gravity of her circumstances had not been properly weighed or realised by the Director and the Board and she should be given an opportunity to plead her case properly.

DISCUSSION

6.The relevant legal principles governing appeals in non‑refoulement cases are set out in Nupur Mst v Director of Immigration [2018] HKCA 524 at [14].

7.In particular, in an appeal against refusal of leave to apply for judicial review in non-refoulement cases, the Court of Appeal will 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’s role is not to examine the decision maker’s decision afresh as if it were a fresh application for judicial review.  See Nupur Mst v Director of Immigration [2018] HKCA 524 at [14(6)].

8.In light of the above, it is thus incumbent on the applicant to point out the errors in the Leave Decision with sufficient particulars and specifics.

9.However, nowhere in her Notice of Appeal did the applicant identify any error committed by the Judge with specific particulars or give any ground in support of her appeal.  Her assertions are all general, bare and vague allegations unsupported by specific particulars or evidence.  In the premises, her assertions do not constitute viable grounds of appeal and lack substance in any event.  We see no basis to interfere with the Leave Decision.

10.For the above reasons, the applicant’s appeal against the Leave Decision has no merit and is dismissed.

The applicant acting in person