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

CACV 684/2026, [2026] HKCA 1453

On appeal from [2026] HKCFI 3207

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 684 OF 2026

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 1228 OF 2025)

________________

_________________

________________

J U D G M E N T

________________

Hon Linda Chan J (giving the judgment of the court):

Background

1.This is an appeal by the applicant against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge Levy dated 16 June 2026[1] refusing to grant leave for the applicant to apply for judicial review against the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board (“the Board”) concerning his non‑refoulement claim.

2.This appeal was scheduled to be heard on 11 August 2026. Despite the directions from the High Court to the applicant dated 24 June 2026, the applicant failed to lodge written submissions within the stipulated time. As the Court’s directions were not complied with, the hearing date has been vacated. The Court will deal with this appeal on paper.

3.The applicant is a national of India. He lodged his non-refoulement claim on the basis that, if refouled, he would be harmed or killed by the family of his girlfriend.  

Decisions of the Director and the Board

4.By the Notice of Decision dated 28 February 2025, the Director of Immigration (“Director”) rejected the applicant’s non-refoulement claim. His appeal was dismissed by the Board on 7 May 2025[2] on the basis that the applicant’s case only involved a private family dispute and the alleged treatment failed to meet the requisite minimum level of severity. The Board also considered that internal relocation option is available to the applicant in India.

The judge’s decision

5.The applicant filed a Form 86 on 2 June 2025 to seek leave to apply for judicial review against the decision of the Board. His application was dismissed by the judge on 16 June 2026.

Grounds of appeal

6.In his notice of appeal filed on 24 June 2026, the applicant stated as his ground of appeal that he did not agree with the decisions make by the Director and the Board.

Legal principles

7.The Court of Appeal’s general approach in dealing with appeals in non-refoulement cases is set out in Nupur Mst v Director of Immigration [2018] HKCA 524.

Analysis and disposition

8.The applicant did not identify any viable ground against the judge’s decision in this appeal. He failed to demonstrate that the judge had made any errors of law or that he had failed to take into account any relevant matters placed before the court.

9.The appeal is devoid of merits and is dismissed.

The Applicant (Appellant), acting in person