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

CACV 661/2026 [2026] HKCA 1446

On Appeal from [2025] HKCFI 3926

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 661 OF 2026

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 1690 OF 2020)

________________

BETWEEN

_________________

________________

J U D G M E N T

________________

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

Background

1.This is an appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge Bruno Chan dated 1 September 2025[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.The applicant is a national of India. He arrived in Hong Kong on 10 March 2012 as visitor and subsequently overstayed. He was arrested by the police on 28 June 2013 and raised a non-refoulement claim on 3 July 2013. His claim was made on the basis that, if refouled, he would be harmed and killed by members of All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam.

Decisions of the Director and the Board

3.By the Notice of Decision dated 29 January 2016 and a Notice of Further Decision dated 30 March 2017, the Director of Immigration rejected the applicant’s non-refoulement claim on all applicable grounds. His appeal was dismissed by the Board on 9 July 2020[2].

The judge’s decision

4.The applicant filed a Form 86 on 20 August 2020 to seek leave to apply for judicial review against the decision of the Board. His application was dismissed by the judge on 1 September 2025. He was granted extension of time to file notice of appeal by the judge on 9 June 2026[3].

Grounds of appeal

5.In his notice of appeal filed on 18 June 2026, the applicant stated as his grounds of appeal that he has two children born in Hong Kong out of wedlock with someone from another religion and would face persecution in India if he returns with her and two young children.

6.He reiterated the problems he faced and the risk of harm in India in his skeleton argument.

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’s ground pertaining to his children born out of wedlock with someone from another religion was not raised previously. An appeal is not the occasion for an applicant to introduce new grounds after the original grounds failed at the court below[4]. In any event, such ground is just bare assertion and does not constitute viable ground against the judge’s decision.

9.The applicant failed to provide any particulars or evidence to support his assertion that the Board’s decision was unreasonable in his leave application at the court below. The judge provided detailed reasons for dismissing the applicant’s leave application. The applicant failed to demonstrate that the judge had made errors of law or failed to take account of relevant matters already placed before the court or was otherwise plainly wrong.

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

The Applicant (Appellant), acting in person