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

CACV 917/2025, [2026] HKCA 1160

On Appeal From [2025] HKCFI 4495

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 917 OF 2025

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO. 1497 OF 2020)

____________________

____________________

________________

JUDGMENT

________________

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

1.On 27 January 2026, this Court handed down a Judgment ([2026] HKCA 24) (“Judgment”) dismissing the Applicant’s appeal against the order of Deputy High Court Judge (Non-refoulement Claims) YW Hew dated 17 October 2025 refusing to grant leave to the Applicant to apply for judicial review. The intended judicial review concerned the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board dismissing the Applicant’s appeal against the decision of the Director of Immigration rejecting his non-refoulement claim.

2.The facts and issues in the Applicant’s appeal, as well as the Court’s reasons for dismissing it, were set out in the Judgment.  We will not repeat them here.

3.By a Notice of Motion filed on 28 January 2026, the Applicant applies for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal (“CFA”). The Notice of Motion states the following :

“1. The learned Judge was wrong in law for failing to properly apply the principle of procedural [fairness] when refusing leave to apply for judicial review.

2. The learned Judge was wrong in law for failing to consider whether the decision of the Director and the Board was irrational and unreasonable having regard to the evidence already before them.

3. The learned Judge failed to properly consider that the Director and the Board relied selectively on Country of Origin Information (COI) and failed to fairly assess the Applicant’s evidence.

4. The learned Judge failed to consider whether sufficient enquiry was made by the Board before finalising its decision.

5. The learned Judge failed to give sufficient reasons explaining why the Applicant’s grounds were not arguable at the leave stage.

6.   The learned Judge failed to properly consider the gravity of the risk of serious harm faced by the Applicant if returned to his country.”

4.Having considered the Notice of Motion and the Applicant’s written submissions, we see no reason to depart from the usual practice of determining an application of this type on paper.

5.We regret to say that the contents of the Notice of Motion are little more than template allegations widely adopted by non-refoulement claimants.  Typically, such allegations are generalised and unpartcularised criticisms which do not engage with the reasons of the court below.  The 6 points advanced in the Notice of Motion are no different.  It is plain that this application merely serves to delay the Applicant’s repatriation to his home country and is a waste of the precious resources of this Court. 

6.The written submissions of the Applicant lodged on 20 February 2026 do not advance this application.  In particular, there is no attempt by the Applicant to identify any question of great general or public importance which is essential for an application of the present type: see s.22(1)(b) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance, Cap 484. 

7.We do not see any basis for granting leave on the “otherwise” limb under s.22(1)(b).

8.This application is entirely without merits. The Notice of Motion is dismissed with no order as to costs.

The Applicant acting in person