Mangar Rekha v. Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office

CACV 760/2025, [2026] HKCA 552

On Appeal From [2025] HKCFI 3918

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 760 OF 2025

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 775 OF 2020)

________________________

_____________________

_______________

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 YW Hew (“the Judge”) dated 5 September 2025 (“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 6 April 2020 (“the Board’s Decision”).

BACKGROUND

2.The Applicant is a national of India. On 11 March 2016, the Applicant lodged a non-refoulement claim on the basis that, if refouled, she would be harmed or killed by her brother because she had refused to marry his friend.[1]  The Applicant’s claim was rejected by the Director of Immigration (“the Director”) on 24 December 2018, and the appeal against the Director’s decision was rejected by the Board on 6 April 2020. 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 CALL-1 Form dated 5 September 2025.[2]   

3.The Applicant’s application for leave to apply for judicial review was refused by the Judge on 5 September 2025. Details of the Judge’s reasons for refusing to grant leave can be found in the CALL-1 Form.

GROUNDS OF APPEAL

4.In the Notice of Appeal filed on 18 September 2025, the Applicant states the following that:

“I do not agree to the decision of the Court of First Instance because this decision is not fair and my problem is very severe in my home country and if I return there I will be killed by my enemies.” (sic)

5.In the 4-page written submissions filed on 28 January 2026, apart from reiterating her non-refoulement claim, the Applicant argues that:

(1)  The Judge’s decision to refuse her appeal was unreasonable.

(2)  The Judge failed to apply the principles of irrationality and unfairness to the decisions of the Director and the Board.

(3)  The Judge’s decision has real and significant implications for her substantive right not to be subject to torture and her right to non-refoulement protection.

(4)  The Judge failed to exercise greater care for her problems in her home country, despite the proof submitted for her claim.

(5)  The Judge failed to analyse her claim properly.

(6)  The Judge did not accept what had been refused by the Director and the Board.

(7)  The Board failed to give her sufficient chance to arrange relevant evidence for her claims and appeal.

(8)  The Board relied significantly on the source of news which is not officially recognised or is simply hearsay.

(9)  The Board’s decision was irrational for failing to evaluate and make a finding of fact as to whether a consistent pattern of gross and mass violation of human rights in her home country and to analyse and assess whether state protection exists in her home country, and for misdirecting himself as to the extended meaning of state protection.

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.The matters raised in the Applicant’s Notice of Appeal and written submissions are all general allegations without particulars. They do not constitute any valid grounds of appeal against the Judge’s decision.

9.The Applicant has failed to identify or show any error in the Judge’s decision refusing to grant leave to apply for judicial review, or raise any viable ground of appeal against the Order.

10.The Applicant’s appeal has no merit, and is dismissed.

The Applicant appeared in person