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

CACV 821/2025, [2026] HKCA 695

On appeal from [2025] HKCFI 4459

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 821 OF 2025

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 1795 OF 2020)

__________________________

BETWEEN

__________________________

________________

JUDGMENT

________________

The Court:

INTRODUCTION

1.This is the applicant’s appeal against the order of Deputy High Court Judge (Non-refoulement Claims) Martin Wong (“the Judge”) dated 29 September 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 19 August 2020 (“the Board’s Decision”) whereby the Board dismissed his appeal against the decision of the Director of Immigration (“the Director”) dated 26 November 2018 (“the Director’s Decision”).

BACKGROUND

2.The applicant is a national of India. He lodged a claim with the Immigration Department on the basis that, if refouled, he would be harmed or killed by a person named Gursewak Singh and his people who were supporters of the Shiromani Akali Dal party because the applicant was a supporter of the Indian Congress Party, an opposing political party. 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 29 September 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.By a notice of appeal filed on 2 October 2025, the applicant sought to appeal the Judge’s decision to this court on the ground that (sic):-

“1. The Applicant submits that the Director, the Adjudicator and the Court has failed to take such argument into account or that the Director has failed to give sufficient weight to such argument before reaching in Decision.

2. The Director’s Decision, it was evident that the director has failed to appreciate or give the proper importance or weight-age to the presence of state Acquiescence in the Applicant’s case. This has indeed led to an unfair outcome of rejecting applicants non refoulement claim.

3. The Adjudicator failed to make sufficient enquiring before finalizing the determination. The Adjudicator stated that the applicant had failed to advice any credible evidence to prove material elements of his claim.

4. The adjudicator has failed to give sufficient chance to the applicant to arrange relevant evidence to his non-refoulement claim as well as his appeal.

5. Surprisingly, the director in his Decision while referring to relevant COIs. Kept including meaning which suited the applicant pre-conceived conclusion. This was a clean case of unfair attitude shown by the Director which in itself is enough to render his Decision void.

5.In the applicant’s skeleton submissions lodged on 4 March 2026, he argued that :-

(1) the Director had failed to appreciate or give the proper importance or weight to the presence of state acquiescence in his case;

(2) the authorities acted discriminatorily in quickly disposing non-refoulement cases;

(3) the Board acted unreasonably and was procedurally unfair by placing too much reliance on the Country of Origin information (“COI”) but failed to take into account his personal background and experience;

(4) the Director failed to place sufficient weight on his COI which “supported the aversions that the police in his country would not be able to protect”.

6.At the hearing on 24 March 2026, the applicant confirmed that he has nothing further to add to further to add to what have already been set out in the written submissions and documents already filed in support of his appeal.

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 as stated in the applicant’s grounds of appeal and in his submissions, which were 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. We dismiss it accordingly.

The applicant appeared in person