Kamaljit Kaur v. Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office

CACV 299/2026, [2026] HKCA 1032

On Appeal From [2026] HKCFI 1412

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 299 OF 2026

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO. 363 OF 2022)

_________________

_________________

_________________

J U D G M E N T

_________________

Hon Eugene Fung J (giving the Judgment of the Court):

1.This is the applicant’s appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge (Non-refoulement Claims) Calvin Cheuk (“the Judge”) dated 19 March 2026 ([2026] HKCFI 1412) (“the Leave Decision”) dismissing her 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 6 May 2022 (“the Board’s Decision”), whereby the Board dismissed her appeal against the decision of the Director of Immigration dated 29 July 2021, refusing her non‑refoulement claim.

2.The applicant is a national of India. The basis of her non‑refoulement claim is, if refouled, she would be harmed or even be killed by her husband due to her unwillingness to accept his proposal for divorce. Her background, the basis of her claim and arguments advanced before the Board as well as the Board’s reasons for rejecting her appeal are all set out in the Board’s Decision: see [4] of the Leave Decision. The Judge has set out his reasons for refusing the Leave Application at [5] ‑ [10] of the Leave Decision. We will not repeat the details herein.

3.By the Notice of Appeal filed on 24 March 2026, the applicant stated:

“I do not agree with the decision of the Court of First Instance. The decision makers did not scrutinize my claims properly and I have still problem in my home country and if I return there I will be killed by my enemies.”

4.In support of her appeal, the applicant also lodged written submissions on 12 May 2026. In those submissions, she mainly claimed that she would be killed by her enemies upon refoulement and that she did not agree with the Leave Decision. She further claimed that the Leave Decision was unreasonable, irrational, procedurally unfair and that the Judge failed to properly analyse her claim. She also complained that the Board failed to give her sufficient chance to arrange relevant evidence and failed to analyse and assess whether state protection existed in her home country.

5.We heard the appeal on 27 May 2026. A Punjabi interpreter was also present to provide language assistance. During the hearing, the applicant indicated that she had nothing further to add to her written materials.

OUR REASONS FOR DECISION

6.In assessing the merits of the appeal, we shall have regard to the legal principles, which this Court has adopted in dealing with appeals in non-refoulement cases. In particular, in the determination of an appeal against the refusal of leave by the Court of First Instance, 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. It is not the role of this Court to examine the decision of the Board afresh as if the appeal were a fresh application for judicial review. See Nupur Mst v Director of Immigration [2018] HKCA 524 at [14]; Re Md Shohel Sheak [2018] HKCA 714 at [13]; and Re Limbu Birkhaman [2019] HKCA 50 at [11].

7.The applicant has not been able to demonstrate any error in the decision of the Judge or advance any viable ground of appeal against the Judge’s decision. Her assertions are all general, bare and vague allegations unsupported by specific particulars or evidence. General and bare assertions of her fear if refouled do not constitute valid grounds of appeal: Re Saldua Dorothy Trifalgar [2022] HKCA 627 at [6]. Clearly, her assertions do not constitute viable grounds of appeal and must fail.

8.In particular, the Judge had fully considered and dealt with her complaints at [6] to [10] of the Leave Decision and found them devoid of substance. The Judge also rightly noted that the Board’s Decision was comprehensive with adequate reasons: [9] of the Leave Decision. Moreover, the Board clearly considered and assessed whether state protection would be available to her upon refoulement: see [45] of the Board’s Decision. She also had ample opportunities to present her evidence and case before the Board and the Judge, both orally and in writing.[1] We also note that the Board found the applicant to be an evasive and unreliable witness, and rejected her evidence regarding the threats from her husband and his friends: see [31] to [39] of the Board’s Decision. There is no merit in her complaints and we see no basis to interfere with the Leave Decision.

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

The applicant, unrepresented, acted in person.