Case Document

100%Judiciary

CACV 917/2025, [2026] HKCA 24

On Appeal From [2025] HKCFI 4495

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 917 OF 2025

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO. 1497 OF 2020)

____________________

BETWEEN
	RANJEET SINGH	Applicant
	and
	TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE	Putative Respondent
	and
	DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION	Putative Interested Party

____________________

Before:

Hon Anthony Chan JA and H. Au-Yeung J in Court

Date of Judgment:

27 January 2026

________________

JUDGMENT

________________

Hon Anthony Chan JA (giving the Judgment of the Court):

1.This is the Applicant’s appeal against the order of Deputy High Court Judge (Non-refoulement Claims) YW Hew (“Judge”) dated 17 October 2025 by which his application for leave to apply for judicial review (“Leave Application”) against the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board (“Board”) dated 14 July 2020 (“Board’s Decision”) was dismissed. By that decision, the Board upheld the decision of the Director of Immigration (“Director”) to reject the Applicant’s non-refoulement claim.

2.The Applicant is a national of India. The basis of his non-refoulement claim had been set out in detail in the Board’s Decision, which may be viewed online via the hyperlink contained in footnote 1 of the CALL-1 Form. In gist, the Applicant claims that he would be seriously harmed or killed by his uncle upon his return.

3.In [7] to [13] of the CALL-1 Form, the Judge gave detailed reasons for refusing the Leave Application.

4.By a Notice of Appeal filed on 22 October 2025, the Applicant appeals against the Judge’s decision. The Applicant contends that: (1) the Director failed to appreciate the issue of state acquiescence; (2) the Director, the Board and the Court failed to take such argument into account or give sufficient weight to it; (3) the Board failed to make sufficient enquiry before finalizing the Board’s Decision; (4) the Director’s use of Country of Origin information (“COI”) was selective and unfair; and (5) the Board and the Director failed to recognize the gravity of the Applicant’s circumstances.

5.This appeal was scheduled to be heard on 8 January 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 27 November 2025. 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. 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.

6.The general approach of this Court in dealing with appeals in non-refoulement cases has been set out in Nupur Mst v Director of Immigration [2018] HKCA 524 at [14]. In particular, in an appeal against refusal of leave to apply for judicial review in non-refoulement cases, this Court 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. This Court’s role is not to examine the Board’s decision afresh as if it is a fresh application for judicial review (see Nupur Mst at [14(6)]).

7.Further, the assessment of evidence, COI, 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 is an error of law or procedural unfairness or irrationality in the decision of the Board: Re Kartini [2019] HKCA 1022 at [13].

8.We note that most of the grounds of appeal are concerned with alleged errors made by the Board and the Director, and not with any error of the Judge. As for the ground based on the Judge’s failure to consider state acquiescence, this issue was never raised in the Form 86 or the affirmation filed in support of the Form 86. It is impermissible for the Applicant to raise fact-sensitive issue for the first time on appeal. In the premises, the Applicant has failed to advance any viable ground of appeal.

9.In the premises, the appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs.