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

CACV 556/2025, [2026] HKCA 1302

On Appeal From [2025] HKCFI 2935

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 556 OF 2025

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO. 983 OF 2020)

____________________

BETWEEN

____________________

________________

JUDGMENT

________________

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

1.On 9 April 2026, this Court handed down a Judgment (“Judgment”) dismissing the Applicant’s appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge Levy (“Judge”) dated 17 July 2025 refusing leave to the Applicant to apply for judicial review. The Applicant had sought to review the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board (“Board”) dismissing her appeal against the decision of the Director of Immigration (“Director”) rejecting her non-refoulement claim.

2.The facts and issues in the Applicant’s appeal, as well as the reasons for dismissing it, are set out in the Judgment ([2026] HKCA 593).  We will not repeat them here.

3.The Applicant now applies, by a Notice of Motion filed on 13 May 2026 (which was out of time by a few days), for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal (“CFA”).  In the Notice of Motion, the Applicant stated that :

“With due respect and humble request to review my appeal and the claim, because I do not agree with the decision of the court and the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board. The all the decisions are made by the decision maker simply. No decision makers did scrutinize my claims properly. My problem is very severe in my home country and if I return there I will be killed by my enemies.”

4.In her written submissions lodged on 27 May 2026, the Applicant reiterated the contents of the Notice of Motion, and made numerous unparticularised allegations of deficiencies against the decisions of the Director, the Board and the Judge. 

5.We note that the contents of the Applicant’s Notice of Motion and written submissions are exact copies of those filed or lodged in CACV 549/2025[1], which was, together with other cases including that of the Applicant, listed for hearing by this Court on 26 March 2026[2]. This kind of copying is widespread and unhelpful to the applicants’ cases.  The Applicant and the one in CACV 549/2025 came from different countries and the circumstances of their non-refoulement claims are very different. Indiscriminate copying of template complaints simply demonstrates the lack of substance in the Applicant’s case. 

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

7.The matters raised by the Applicant do not constitute proper grounds for granting leave to appeal to the CFA.  The Applicant has not raised any question of great general or public importance for the CFA to consider, as required by section 22(1)(b) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance, Cap 484.  Nor is any such question apparent to us from the matters she has raised.  Further, we do not see any basis for granting leave on the “otherwise” limb under section 22(1)(b).

8.The Applicant has failed to identify any error in the Judgment, and there is no merit in this application.

9.For these reasons, the Notice of Motion is dismissed with no order as to costs.

The Applicant acting in person

[1]  The Notice of Motion and written submissions were filed and lodged respectively on 27 April and 11 May 2026 in CACV 549/2025.

[2]  The Applicant’s case was disposed of on paper because she failed to comply with the court’s directions on lodging her skeleton arguments (Judgment,[5]).