Ghanshyam v. Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office
|
CACV 686/2026, [2026] HKCA 1454 On appeal from [2026] HKCFI 3278 IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION COURT OF APPEAL CIVIL APPEAL NO 686 OF 2026 (ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 636 OF 2023) ________________
_________________
________________ 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 Martin Wong dated 15 June 2026[1] refusing to grant leave to apply for judicial review against the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board (“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 people of the opposing political affiliation. Decisions of the Director and the Board 4.By the Notice of Decision dated 30 November 2021, the Director of Immigration rejected the applicant’s non-refoulement claim. His appeal was dismissed by the Board on 14 February 2023[2]. The Board did not accept that the applicant had any political involvement with the Rashritya Loktranik Party or that he left India for that reason. The Board found that the applicant was not a truthful witness and had manufactured his claim for non-refoulement protection in Hong Kong. The judge’s decision 5.The applicant filed a Form 86 on 2 May 2023 to seek leave to apply for judicial review against the decision of the Board. His application was dismissed by the judge on 15 June 2026. Grounds of appeal 6.The applicant raised the following grounds of appeal in his notice of appeal:
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 to show that the Board’s findings against him were in any way incorrect. 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 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||