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

CACV 427/2026, [2026] HKCA 1102

On Appeal From [2026] HKCFI 1998

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 427 OF 2026

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 465 OF 2022)

________________________

BETWEEN

________________________

________________________

J U D G M E N T

________________________

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

1.This is the applicant’s appeal against the order of Deputy High Court Judge Bruno Chan (“the Judge”)  dated 14 April 2026 ([2026] HKCFI 1998)  (“the Leave Decision”)  dismissing his 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 29 April 2022 (“the Board’s Decision”), whereby the Board dismissed his appeal against the decision of the Director of Immigration dated 20 October 2021, refusing his non-refoulement claim.

2.The applicant is a national of India.  The basis of his non-refoulement claim is that, if refouled, he would be harmed or killed by his paternal uncle over a land dispute in his home village with the applicant’s father.  His background, the basis of his claim and arguments advanced before the Board as well as the Board’s reasons for rejecting his appeal were set out in the Board’s Decision: see [1] – [8] of the Leave Decision.  The Board rejected the applicant’s claims regarding the alleged land dispute, the threats from his uncle, and the reasons for coming to Hong Kong, finding that he was not a credible witness.

3.The Judge set out his reasons for refusing the Leave Application at [9] – [14] of the Leave Decision.  The Judge noted that the Board had rejected the applicant’s claims by reason of its findings of credibility. He further did not find any reasonably arguable basis to challenge the Board’s findings.

4.By the Notice of Appeal filed on 27 April 2026, the applicant claimed:

“I do not agree with the decision of the Court of First Instance.  The Court did not scrutinize my claim properly. Despite my problem in my home country is very severe the Court of First Instance and the Torture Claims Appeal Board rejected my claim.  The decision makers considered my claims as a simply.  If I return to my country I will be killed by my enemies.” (sic)  

5.In support of his appeal, the applicant also lodged written submissions on 1 June 2026.  In those submissions, the applicant cited various case authorities on the high standards of fairness and procedural fairness without condescending to particulars as to how they are relevant to his individual case. 

6.We heard the appeal on 15 June 2026.  A Punjabi interpreter was also present to provide language assistance. At the hearing, the applicant said that he was in detention, and that he had called his family, who told him that the situation at home was the same as before, so that there was no need for him to go back home. He further indicated that he was married to a Hong Kong resident and wished to stay in Hong Kong.

DISCUSSION

7.The relevant legal principles governing appeals in non-refoulement cases are set out in Nupur Mst v Director of Immigration [2018] HKCA 524 at [14].

8.In particular, in an appeal against refusal of leave to apply for judicial review in non-refoulement cases, 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.  The Court’s role is not to examine the decision maker’s decision afresh as if it were a fresh application for judicial review.  See Nupur Mst v Director of Immigration [2018] HKCA 524 at [14(6)].

9.We see no merit in the applicant’s contentions.  Nowhere in his Notice of Appeal did the applicant identify any error committed by the Judge with specific particulars.  His assertions against the Board’s Decision are general and bare allegations unsupported by reference to the facts of his case.  General assertions of fear if refouled do not constitute proper grounds of appeal: Re Saldua Dorothy Trifalgar [2022] HKCA 627 at [6].  As the Judge noted, there was no error of law or any procedural unfairness in the Board’s Decision: see [13] of the Leave Decision.

10.Even if the situation in India remains, as claimed by the applicant, the same as before, this does not affect the correctness of the Leave Decision. As to the point that the applicant is now married to a Hong Kong resident, this is not relevant to the grounds on which the applicant sought non-refoulement.

11.There is therefore no viable ground of appeal and we see no basis to interfere with the Leave Decision.

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

The Applicant, unrepresented, appeared in person