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

CACV 1151/2025, [2026] HKCA 1250

On Appeal From [2025] HKCFI 5412

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 1151 OF 2025

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 1123 OF 2025)

________________________

BETWEEN

________________________

________________________

J U D G M E N T

________________________

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

1.On 24 November 2025, Deputy High Court Judge K W Lung made an order refusing to grant to the Applicant leave to apply for judicial review. The intended judicial review was against the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office dated 28 April 2025, whereby the Board dismissed the Applicant’s appeal against the decision of the Director of Immigration dated 18 February 2025 rejecting his non-refoulement claim.

2.On 13 February 2026, this Court gave its judgment (“the CA Judgment”) dismissing the Applicant’s appeal against the order of the Judge.  The basic facts of this case and the Court’s reasons for dismissing the Applicant’s appeal have been set out in the CA Judgment and will not be repeated here.

3.By a Notice of Motion filed on 16 February 2026, the Applicant applied for leave to appeal the CA Judgment to the Court of Final Appeal.  In the Notice of Motion, the Applicant states that he does not agree with the decisions of the Board and the Court of Appeal.  He says that his problem in his home country is still in existence, and he will be killed by his enemies if he returns home.

4.In his written submissions dated 2 March 2026 filed in support of the application, the Applicant states that he does not agree with the decision of the Court, and says that he will be killed by his enemies in his home country.  He makes some general allegations, including that the “learned Judge” reviewed the matter “lightly”, was wrong as a matter of law for not having applied the principle of irrationality to the decisions made by the Director and the Board, and for not having applied the principle of procedural fairness, and his decision was unreasonable.  He also complains about the assessment of evidence by the Board, and repeats his claimed fear of being tortured or even killed by his enemies, whom he says are now controlling the power of government in his country (India).

5.Pursuant to paragraph 3 of Practice Direction 2.1, we determine the present application for leave to appeal on paper without an oral hearing.

6.Under s 22(1)(b) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance, Cap 484, an appeal shall lie to the Court of Final Appeal at the discretion of the Court of Appeal or the Court of Final Appeal in any civil cause or matter if, in the opinion of the Court of Appeal or the Court of Final Appeal (as the case may be), the question involved in the appeal is one which, by reason of its great general or public importance, or otherwise, ought to be submitted to the Court of Final Appeal for decision.

7.No question of great general or public importance involved in the intended appeal is identified in the Notice of Motion.  We are unable to see any such question being involved in the intended appeal.  The Applicant has not raised any viable ground of appeal against the CA Judgment.  We are satisfied that the intended appeal has no reasonable prospect of success.

8.There is also no basis to grant leave to appeal on the “or otherwise” limb in s 22(1)(b) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance.

9.Accordingly, the application for leave to appeal is refused and the Notice of Motion is dismissed.

The Applicant, acting in person