Sekhon Harbans Singh v. Torture Claims Appeal Board

CACV 275/2026, [2026] HKCA 1133

On Appeal From [2026] HKCFI 1452

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 275 OF 2026

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 423 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 Michael Wong (“Judge”) on 11 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 11 March 2021.  In that decision, the Board upheld the decision of the Director of Immigration (“Director”) dated 4 September 2018 rejecting the applicant’s non-refoulement claim.

Background

2.The applicant is a national of India born in 1993 and his claim was made on the basis that if he returned to India, a politician named Dr. Ajit Singh Shant, the Shiromani Akali Dal political party, and/or the Indian police would harm or kill him due to his change of political allegiance, Shant’s fear that his illegal activities would be revealed by the applicant, and Shant’s false allegations against the applicant as a result of which he was tortured by the police whilst in detention.  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 [1] 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 refusing the application: see [9] – [29] of the Form CALL-1.

Appeal to this Court

3.On 19 March 2026, the applicant filed his Notice of Appeal against the Judge’s decision.  His stated ground of appeal was solely that he was not satisfied with the order.

4.As the applicant did not lodge any written submissions, the scheduled hearing of his appeal was vacated pursuant to the directions of the Court.  We shall determine the appeal on the basis of the available documents and materials.

Discussion

5.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.

6.At the hearing, the Board found that the applicant was evasive in answering its questions and, after several questions, he stated that he would not answer any more questions.  The Board was unable to clarify parts of the applicant’s account where it was lacking in detail or was inconsistent with other materials.  Based on the available papers and information, the Board found that there was no real risk of harm upon refoulement as alleged, because the perceived ill-treatment would not attain the requisite minimum level of severity, adequate state protection would be available, and internal relocation to Delhi would be a viable option for the applicant.  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.

7.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.

8.The applicant’s appeal is accordingly dismissed.

The Applicant, unrepresented, acting in person