Balpreet Singh v. Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office

CACV 253/2026, [2026] HKCA 1129

On Appeal From [2026] HKCFI 1106

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 253 OF 2026

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 479 OF 2021)

____________

____________

_________________

J U D G M E N T

_________________

Hon G Lam JA (giving the Judgment of the Court):

Introduction

1.This is an appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge (Non-Refoulement Claims) Jeffrey Chau (“Judge”) on 6 March 2026 dismissing the applicant’s application for leave to apply for judicial review against the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board/adjudicator of the Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office (“Board”) dated 30 March 2021.  In that decision, the Board upheld the decision of the Director of Immigration (“Director”) dated 6 September 2018 rejecting the applicant’s non-refoulement claim.

Background

2.The applicant is a national of India born in 1997.  His claim was made on the basis that if he returned to India, his girlfriend’s brother (Aman) and her family would harm or kill him due to their inter-caste romantic relationship.  Details of 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 [4] of the Form CALL-1.  The Judge has set out the grounds advanced by the applicant in support of the application and his reasons for refusal of the application: see [8] – [11] of the Form CALL-1.

Appeal to this Court

3.On 17 March 2026, the applicant filed his Notice of Appeal against the Judge’s decision.  His stated grounds of appeal were, essentially, that he did not agree with the decisions of the Judge and the Board, and that the decision makers did not scrutinize his claim properly.

4.The applicant has lodged written submissionsfor this appeal in which he stated that the Judge’s decision was unreasonable, that the Judge erred by not finding the decisions of the Director and the Board to be irrational, that the Director and the Board failed to give reasons justifying their decisions, that the Judge did not analyze his claim properly and reviewed his matter lightly, that the Board did not allow the applicant to arrange for relevant evidence, that the Board relied on sources of news thatwere not officially recognized or were simply hearsay, that the Board failed to evaluate and make a finding as to whether there was a consistent pattern of gross and mass violation of human rights in his home country, and that the Board failed to analyze and assess whether state protection existed in his home country.  He also stated that he would be killed by his enemies in his home country, and that he had no faith in the government or police there.

5.At the hearing, the applicant stated he had nothing further to add.

Discussion

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: 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].  In particular, the role of the Court in a judicial review is not to provide a further avenue of appeal.  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.  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.

7.At the hearing before the Board, the applicant refused to testify and answer questions from the Board.  As such, the Board assessed the applicant’s claim from the available papers.  The Board found that there was no real risk of harm upon refoulement as alleged, because his evidence was inconsistent and his claims lacked credibility on assessment of the evidence as a whole.  Therefore, the Board concluded that it was not necessary to consider or make further findings in relation to state protection and internal relocation.  These are findings of fact open to the Board based on the evidence it received and for the reasons it gave. The applicant has failed to show any reasonably arguable public law error in relation to the Board’s decision.

8.Equally, 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.  We are not satisfied that there is any error in the Judge’s decision.

9.The applicant’s appeal is accordingly dismissed.

The Applicant appeared in person