Re Pokkathayil Devassy Shalby

CACV 1187/2025, [2026] HKCA 442

On Appeal From [2025] HKCFI 6109

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 1187 OF 2025

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 1707 OF 2025)

________________________

________________________

________________________

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 Bruno Chan (“the Judge”)  dated 9 December 2025 ([2025] HKCFI 6109)  (“the Leave Decision”)  refusing to grant extension of time and dismissing his 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 27 December 2024 (“the Board’s Decision”), whereby the Board dismissed his appeal against the decision of the Director of Immigration dated 18 October 2024, refusing his non-refoulement claim.

2.The appeal was listed to be heard on 2 February 2026.  By the directions made by the Registrar of Civil Appeals on 15 December 2025, which were received by the applicant in person on the same day, he was directed to lodge two sets of skeleton argument on or before 19 January 2026, failing which, he would be deemed to have waived his right to have an oral hearing for the appeal and the hearing date would be vacated with the appeal being determined on paper.  However, he did not lodge any skeleton argument in support of his appeal.

3.As the applicant failed to lodge any skeleton argument by the stipulated time, he was deemed to have waived his right to have an oral hearing and elected to have his appeal disposed of on paper.  The hearing date was thus vacated on 20 January 2026.

4.The applicant’s background, the basis of his claim and arguments advanced before the Board as well as the Board’s reasons for rejecting his appeal are all set out in the Board’s Decision: see [1] - [9] of the Leave Decision.  The Judge also sets out in detail his reasons for refusing the Leave Application: see [10] - [18] of the Leave Decision.  We will not repeat the details herein.

5.By the Notice of Appeal filed on 15 December 2025, the applicant stated:

“I want to apply Notice of appeal against my ORDER because I am not satisfied with this ORDER. Respected the high court if my case is finished early in High Court then immigration department will be send back me to my country soon and I already told you and also immigration department that my life is still danger in my home country India. So I cannot go now and I want to save my life only few years until my home condition not become good.” (sic)

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 his Notice of Appeal has the applicant identified any error committed by the Judge with specific particulars or given any ground in support of his appeal.  His assertions are all general, bare and vague allegations unsupported by specific particulars or evidence. General assertions of his fear if refouled do not constitute proper grounds of appeal: Re Saldua Dorothy Trifalgar [2022] HKCA 627 at [6].  They do not constitute viable grounds of appeal and lack substance.  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