Lathwal Naveen v. Director of Immigration

CACV 461/2025, [2026] HKCA 767

On Appeal From [2025] HKCFI 2555

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 461 OF 2025

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 2309 OF 2024)

________________________

BETWEEN

_____________________

_____________________

JUDGMENT

_____________________

The Court:

INTRODUCTION

1.This is the Applicant’s appeal against the order of Deputy High Court Judge Bruno Chan (“the Judge”) dated 19 June 2025 (“the Order”) refusing to grant leave to apply for judicial review of the decision of the Director of Immigration (“the Director”) dated 5 June 2024 (“the Director’s Decision”).

BACKGROUND

2.The Applicant is a national of India.[1] On 18 January 2024, the Applicant requested in writing to the Immigration Department to make a subsequent claim on the basis that, if refouled, he would be harmed or killed by his uncle because he had another dispute with his uncle over his religious conversion from Hinduism to Christianity.[2] The Applicant’s request for making a subsequent claim was rejected by the Director on 5 June 2024. Details of the Applicant’s basis of subsequent claim and the Director’s reasons for rejecting the Applicant’s request can be found in the CALL-1 Form dated 19 June 2025.[3]

3.The Applicant’s application for leave to apply for judicial review was refused by the Judge on 19 June 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 his Notice of Appeal filed on 2 July 2025, the Applicant states that:

“I am Disagree with the decision maker authorties. The discriminatory act of authorities towards Non Refoulement claimants merely on Basis of quick disposed of non Refoulement cases in unacceptable and determined to the spirit of Judicial system.” (sic)

5.The Applicant has failed to lodge written submissions in support of the appeal in accordance with the directions given by the Registrar of Civil Appeals on 16 December 2025. Accordingly, the Applicant is deemed to have waived the 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.

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 are all general allegations without particulars. They do not constitute any valid grounds of appeal against the Judge’s decision. The Applicant’s appeal has no merit, and is dismissed.

The Applicant, unrepresented, acted in person