Gurmej Singh v. Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office

CACV 310/2025, [2026] HKCA 540

On appeal from [2025] HKCFI 2033

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 310 OF 2025

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 3652 OF 2019)

__________________________

__________________________

________________

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 (Non-refoulement Claims) Teresa Wu (“the Judge”) dated 15 May 2025[1](“the Order”) 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 25 November 2019[2](“the Board’s Decision”) whereby the Board dismissed his appeal against the decision of the Director of Immigration (“the Director”) dated 19 September 2018[3] (“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 his uncles and cousins owing to 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 15 May 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.In the notice of appeal filed on 20 May 2025, the applicant stated that (sic) “the grounds of this appeal are that the Applicant will face hardship if he is to return back to his home country and that the Torture Claims Appeal Board has significantly relied on the source of news which is not officially recognized, or it is simply hearsay. They have also relied on some cases which are outdated considering the dramatic changes. The lack of credible source of information has resulted in them making groundless speculations”.

5.In his 4-page written submissions lodged on 9 February 2026, the applicant recited a number of cases and made generic submissions on the general principles of law relating to non-refoulement claims.

6.At the hearing on 11 March 2026, the applicant confirmed that he has nothing further to add to his written submissions.

DISCUSSION & DISPOSITION

7.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)).

8.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.

9.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 stated in the applicant’s grounds of appeal and his submissions are not substantiated with any specific information or elaboration as to how they apply to his present appeal.

10.It is incumbent on the applicant to point out the Judge's errors with sufficient particulars and specifics. In our view, the matters set out in the applicant’s notice of appeal and written submissions failed to identify any error on the part of the Judge. They do not constitute any viable grounds of appeal and lack substance. We see no basis to interfere with the Judge’s decision.

11.For the above reasons, the applicant’s appeal is devoid of merits. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal.

The applicant appeared in person