Sivaneththi Chithrananda Aberuwan v. Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office

CACV 1127/2025, [2026] HKCA 1247

On Appeal From [2025] HKCFI 4215

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 1127 OF 2025

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 2770 OF 2019)

________________________

BETWEEN

________________________

________________

J U D G M E N T

________________

Hon Chow JA (giving the Judgment of the Court):

1.This is the Applicant’s appeal against the order of Deputy High Court Judge To (“the Judge”) dated 16 September 2025 (“the Order”) refusing to grant leave to the Applicant to apply for judicial review of the decision of Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office (“the Board”) dated 29 August 2019 (“the Board’s Decision”), whereby the Board dismissed the Applicant’s appeal against the decision of the Director of Immigration (“the Director”) dated 27 February 2019.

2.By way of preliminary observation, we note that in the Applicant’s Notice of Appeal filed on 1 December 2025, it is stated that the present appeal is against an order made by the Judge on 21 November 2025.  As a matter of fact, the order that the Judge made on 21 November 2025 was an order which extended the time for the Applicant to lodge the present appeal. It seems to us clear that the Applicant’s true intention is to appeal against the Order made by the Judge on 16 September 2025 refusing to grant leave to apply for judicial review.  In view of the fact that the Applicant is a litigant in person and in order to save time and costs, we shall proceed to consider the present appeal on the basis that it is an appeal against the Order, without requiring the Applicant to take out an application for leave to amend his Notice of Appeal.

3.The Applicant has advanced different factual bases in support of his claim for non-refoulement protection, including (i) he was a supporter of the People’s Alliance, (ii) his fear of being harmed or killed by his employer (MS), who was a member of Parliament, because he refused to kill people and/or traffic in dangerous drugs, (iii) his fear of being harmed as a result of his alliance with and support for the United National Party, and (iv) his fear of being harmed or killed by the Sri Lankan authorities because of his illegal entry into Hong Kong[1].

4.The Applicant’s background, the bases of his claim, the findings of the Board and its reasons for dismissing his appeal against the Director’s decision have been set out in detail in the Board’s Decision, and summarised by the Judge in his decision (see §§2-4 of the CALL-1 Form). We do not propose to repeat them here.

5.The Judge’s reasons for dismissing the Applicant’s leave application are set out at §§5 and 6 of the CALL-1 Form.  In gist, the Judge held that the Applicant was seeking to challenge findings of fact by the Board which was not a permissible ground for his leave application, and his intended judicial review had no realistic prospect of success in any event.

THIS APPEAL

6.In his Notice of Appeal filed on 1 December 2025, the Applicant states that he is not satisfied with the Judge’s decision, and contends that his life is still in danger in his home country.

7.The Applicant has failed to lodge written submissions in support of his appeal in accordance with the directions given by the Registrar of Civil Appeals on 4 June 2026.  Accordingly, he is deemed to have waived the right to have an oral hearing of his appeal and elected to have his appeal disposed of on paper.  Having considered the documents before us, we consider that it is appropriate to deal with the Applicant’s appeal on paper without an oral hearing.

DISCUSSION

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

9.Further, the assessment of evidence, country of origin information, risk of harm, state protection and viability of internal relocation are primarily within the province of the Board and the Director. 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: Re Kartini [2019] HKCA 1022, at §13.  No such error of law or procedural unfairness or irrationality in the decision of the Board is shown in the present case.

10.The Applicant has failed to raise any viable ground of appeal against the Order.

11.The Applicant’s appeal has no merit, and is dismissed.

The Applicant, acting in person