Re Ranjit Singh

CACV 911/2025, [2026] HKCA 642

On Appeal From [2025] HKCFI 4689

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 911 OF 2025

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO. 1873 OF 2020)

__________________

__________________

__________________

JUDGMENT

__________________

Hon Cheung JA (giving the Judgment of the Court) :

1.This is the applicant’s appeal against the order of Deputy High Court Judge Martin Wong dated 21 October 2025 ([2025] HKCFI 4689) (‘the Leave Decision’) refusing 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 14 September 2020 (‘the Board’s Decision’), whereby the Board dismissed his appeal against the decision of the Director of Immigration (‘the Director’) dated 27 November 2018, refusing his non-refoulement claim. The applicant did not attend the hearing of the appeal and we will deal with his appeal on paper.

2.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 [5], [7]-[10] of the Leave Decision[1].

3.The applicant claimed that he entered Hong Kong illegally in July 2015 from the Mainland and surrendered to the Immigration Department shortly. He made his claim for non-refoulement in August 2015 and November 2015. The basis of his claim is that if he returned to India, he would be harmed or killed by a police officer who believed that his son was killed by the applicant in a car accident[2].

4.The Judge sets out his reasons for refusing the Leave Application: see [7]-[12] of the Leave Decision. We will not repeat the details herein.

5.By the Notice of Appeal filed on 22 October 2025, the applicant stated the following :

‘ The Respondents had unlawfully fettered his discretion by refused my appeal on the grounds that they did not satisfy the requirements. The Respondents failed to meet the greater care and duty owed to a self-represented claimants.’

6.In his written submissions, the applicant stated the following in summary :

1) His case was not determined fairly;

2) The applicant does not know how his case was determined so it was not easy for him to appeal;

3) The applicant was never provided with legal and language assistance[3];

4) There was breach of procedural fairness in that the Board unlawfully fettered discretion, and was procedurally unfair, and unreasonable and irrational, and failed to meet greater care and duty;

5) The discriminatory acts of disposing non-refoulement cases quickly is unacceptable; and

6) Lack of sound judgment and fairness should not be tolerated.

I. Discussion

7.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].

8.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)].

9.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.

10.However, nowhere in his Notice of Appeal or written submission did the applicant identify any error committed by the Judge with specific particulars. 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]. The Court will not usurp the role of the Board. Assessment of evidence, country of origin information materials, 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. No such error was demonstrated by the applicant. Clearly, his assertions do not constitute viable grounds of appeal and lack substance. [His oral submissions do not carry the case further.] We see no basis to interfere with the Leave Decision.

11.For the above reasons, the applicant’s appeal against the Leave Decision has no merit and is dismissed.

Applicant, acting in person