Kanappan Rajiv v. Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office

CACV 517/2025, [2026] HKCA 720

On Appeal From [2025] HKCFI 2857

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 517 OF 2025

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 969 OF 2020)

________________________

BETWEEN

_____________________

________________

JUDGMENT

________________

Hon Ng J (giving the Judgment of the Court):

INTRODUCTION

1.This is the Applicant’s appeal against the order of DHCJ Michael Wong (“the Judge”) dated 8 July 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 21 February 2019 (“the Board’s Decision”).

BACKGROUND

2.The Applicant is a national of India. On 19 February 2013, the Applicant lodged a non-refoulement claim, which was rejected by the Director of Immigration (“the Director”) on 4 October 2018. On 16 October 2018, he filed a notice of appeal against the Director’s decision. However, on 18 February 2019, the Applicant in writing applied to withdraw his appeal against the Director’s decision, and the Board subsequently allowed his withdrawal of the appeal and confirmed the Director’s decision on 21 February 2019. Yet, by Form 86 dated 22 May 2020, the Applicant applied for leave to review the Board’s Decision. The Applicant’s application for leave to apply for judicial review was refused by the Judge on 8 July 2025. Details of the Judge’s reasons for refusing to grant leave can be found in the CALL-1 Form dated 8 July 2025.

GROUNDS OF APPEAL

3.In the Notice of Appeal filed on 21 July 2025, the Applicant states the following that:

“I am disagree with the decision maker authorities. The decision made by the Director of Immigration, As well as the decision made by the Adjudicator of the Torture Claim Appeal Board. There is no proper investigation in my claim. My life still in danger in my home land.”

4.In the skeleton argument filed on 19 March 2026, the Applicant argues that he has not been offered legal and language assistance. The Applicant further argues that the Board’s refusal of his appeal was unreasonable, unlawful and procedurally unfair. The Board also acted in a discriminatory manner by quickly disposing of his non-refoulement claim. These submissions, like the ground set out in the Notice of Appeal, are unrelated to the Board’s Decision or the Judge’s reason.

5.The appeal was heard on 14 April 2026. The Applicant attended the hearing in person with the assistance of a Tamil interpreter and added that the Immigration Department had taken his passport.

LEGAL PRINCIPLES

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)).

DISCUSSION & DISPOSITION

7.The Judge correctly upheld the Board’s Decision for there was no evidence to show that the Applicant made the withdrawal application other than out of his own volition, thus the withdrawal was valid. As such, there was no error in the Board’s Decision acceding to the Applicant’s request to withdraw his appeal.

8.The matters raised in the Applicant’s Notice of Appeal and skeleton argument are unrelated to the decisions of the Board and the Judge.

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, acting in person