Rinku Masih v. Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office

CACV 316/2026, [2026] HKCA 1016

On Appeal From [2026] HKCFI 1401

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 316OF 2026

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO. 217 OF 2022)

____________________

____________________

________________

JUDGMENT

________________

Hon Anthony Chan JA (giving the Judgment of the Court) :

1.This is the Applicant’s appeal against the order of Deputy High Court Judge (Non-refoulement Claims) Sabrina Ho (“Judge”) dated 25 March 2026 dismissing his application for leave to apply for judicial review (“Leave Application”) against the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board (“Board”) dated 24 February 2022 (“Board’s Decision”) by which the Board upheld the decision of the Director of Immigration rejecting the Applicant’s non-refoulement claim.

2.The Applicant is a national of India.  The basis of his non-refoulement claim had been set out in detail in the Board’s Decision, which may be viewed online via the hyperlink contained in [5] of the Form CALL-1 dated 25 March 2026.  In gist, the Applicant claims that if he returns to his home country, he will be harmed or killed by the president of Shiromani Akali Dal party in his village because of a land dispute with him.

3.In [6] to [10] of the Form CALL-1, the Judge gave detailed reasons for refusing the Leave Application.

4.By a Notice of Appeal filed on 27 March 2026, the Applicant appeals against the Judge’s decision.  The Applicant contends that :

“I do not agree with the decision of the Court of First Instance. The learned Judge did not scrutinize my claim properly and the decisions of the Court and the Torture Claims Appeal Board are unfair. My problem is still exist in my home country.”

5.By his skeleton argument lodged on 22 May 2026, the Applicant reiterated his claim that his life would be at risk if refouled and that he would be tortured or killed by his enemies.  His arguments may be summarized as follows :

(a)     the Judge failed to apply the principles of rationality, procedural fairness and high standards of fairness, and also failed to analyse his claims properly;

(b)     the Board failed to give him sufficient chance to arrange for relevant evidence and failed to evaluate whether a consistent pattern of gross and mass violation of human rights exists in his home country;

(c)     the Board relied on source of news which was not officially recognised or was simply hearsay;

(d)     the Board failed to analyse and assess the issue of state protection in his home country.

6.At the hearing of this appeal, the Applicant said that he had nothing further to add.

7.The general approach of this Court in dealing with appeals in non-refoulement cases has been set out in Nupur Mst v Director of Immigration [2018] HKCA 524 at [14].  In particular, in an appeal against refusal of leave to apply for judicial review in non-refoulement cases, this Court 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.  This Court’s role is not to examine the Board’s decision afresh as if it is a fresh application for judicial review (see Nupur Mst at [14(6)]).

8.Further, 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 Director and the Board. The Court will not intervene by way of judicial review unless there is an error of law or procedural unfairness or irrationality in the decision of the Board: Re Kartini [2019] HKCA 1022 at [13].

9.In the present case, the Judge found no error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the Board’s Decision[1].  The matters raised in the Notice of Appeal and the Applicant’s skeleton argument are bare assertions without proper particulars.  They do not demonstrate any error on the part of the Judge.  Nor do they constitute any viable grounds of appeal.  We see no basis to interfere with the Judge’s decision.

10.In the premises, this appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs.

The Applicant appeared in person

[1] Form CALL-1, [9].