Bikramjeet Singh v. Torture Claims Appeal Board

CACV 385/2025, [2026] HKCA 870

On appeal from [2025] HKCFI 2241

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 385 OF 2025

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 789 OF 2025)

__________________________

__________________________

________________

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 Bruno Chan (“the Judge”) dated 5 June 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 30 May 2024 (“the Board’s Decision”) whereby the Board dismissed his appeal against the decision of the Director of Immigration (“the Director”) dated 25 January 2024 (“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 the son of his father’s former business partner over their monetary dispute. The applicant’s non-refoulement claim was rejected by the Director, and his appeal against it was rejected by the Board. A summary of the applicant’s background and his process before the Director and the Board can be found under paragraphs [1] – [10] of the Form CALL-1 dated 5 June 2025[1] (“the Form CALL-1”).

3.The applicant’s application for leave to apply for judicial review was not made within statutory timeframe of 3 months from the Board’s decision. After considering the length of the delay, the reason for the delay, the merits of the intended application, and any prejudice to the putative respondent and to public administration, it was dismissed by the Judge and details of the Judge’s reasons can be found in the Form CALL-1.

GROUNDS OF APPEAL

4.By a notice of appeal filed on 10 June 2025, the applicant sought to appeal the Judge’s decision to this court on the grounds that:-

a.  The applicant was self-represented and was given adequate opportunities to present his case, but he was disadvantaged in comparison to represented litigants;

b.  The applicant was not able to read or write English and was not provided with any language or legal assistance which was unfair to him. As a result of the lack of language and legal assistance, the applicant was not able to satisfy the authorities in his claim ground by ground, to elaborate on any grounds during the application for judicial review;

c.  The Judge failed to acknowledge, give any weight to, and neglected the applicant’s individual circumstances and difficulties and displayed unfairness;

d.  The applicant did not receive Board’s Decision, and by the time he did, he was already out of time to take out the application for leave for judicial review;  

e.  The Board did not assess the applicant’s situation with empathy and context of a different culture which led to an unfair evaluation of his credibility;

f.  It is procedurally unfair that there are no other avenues for a non-refoulement claimant to seek an appeal against a decision purely against credibility, and it is a legal error;

g.  The applicant was not provided with an interpreter to understand the Board’s decision, and a court hearing should have been held so that he could explain the errors in the Board’s Decision; and

h.  The applicant requests the Judge’s decision to be translated and read to him so that he can prepare and respond appropriately, and requests an oral hearing with an interpreter to assist him.

5.The appeal was scheduled to be heard on 24 March 2026. The applicant has failed to lodge any skeleton argument in support of his appeal in accordance with the directions given by the Registrar of Civil Appeals on 12 February 2026. Accordingly, the applicant is deemed to have waived his right to have an oral hearing of the appeal, and elected to have the appeal disposed of on paper. The applicant was informed of the same by the court’s letter dated 11 March 2026.

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 applicant’s complaint about the lack of legal and language assistance was not raised in his application below. He is not entitled to raise it for the first time in the Court of Appeal. In any event, it has no merit.

9.The applicant was assisted by his solicitors in relation to the assessment of his non-refoulement claim by the Director, and clearly had legal and language assistance at that stage. It is well-established that a non-refoulement claimant is not entitled to free legal representation or language assistance at all stages of the assessment of his non-refoulement claim. In this regard, we note that the Form 86 and the supporting affirmation filed in the court below, as well as his Notice of Appeal filed with this Court are all written in English. This indicates that the applicant is either conversant with English, or has access to language assistance as needed. Further, the applicant has failed to show that he was inhibited from advancing any particular point or ground before the Board or before the Judge by reason of the lack of legal or language assistance.

10.The applicant’s complaint that he did not receive the Board’s Decision and that he was already out of time to file his Form 86 when he received, this is not a valid ground either. In his grounds of appeal, the applicant merely repeated the same argument as before without providing any further explanation to substantiate this ground. In fact, the applicant did not raise this mail issue in his Form 86 or his affirmation, but only at the hearing before the Judge. In any event, we see no reason to intervene as this issue has been dealt with by the Judge in the Form CALL-1 in which he stated:- 

13. As the last day of the three-month period for him to file his Form 86 fell on 30 September 2024 after discounting the month of August for the court’s vacation, the Applicant was therefore some 6 months late with his application, and in considering whether to extend time, the Court shall have regard to (i) the length of the delay; (ii) the reason for the delay; (iii) the merits of the intended application; and (iv) any prejudice to the putative respondent and to public administration: AW v Director of Immigration [2016] 2 HKC 393.

14. In the Applicant’s case, a delay of 6 months must be considered as substantial and inordinate, for which he explained at the hearing of his application that he never received the decision in the mail, and that it was only sometime in March 2025 when he reported on his recognizance that he was informed by his immigration officer of the decision, but by then he was already out of time with his intended application.

15. The record shows that the decision was sent on the same day of 30 May 2024 to the Applicant’s then reported address without being returned through undelivered post, and in the absence of any reliable evidence from the Applicant to corroborate his bare assertions, I am not satisfied that he has provided any credible justification for his such serious delay.

11.The other complaints raised by the Applicant are all bare assertions without particulars, and cannot constitute valid grounds of appeal against the Judge’s decision.

12.The applicant has failed to identify or show any error in the Judge’s decision refusing to grant an extension of time to apply for judicial review, or raise any viable ground of appeal against the Order. The applicant’s appeal is devoid of merits. We dismiss it accordingly.

The applicant, unrepresented, acted in person