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

CACV 667/2026 [2026] HKCA 1448

On Appeal from [2026] HKCFI 3277

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 667 OF 2026

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 620 OF 2023)

________________

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 Martin Wong dated 15 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.The applicant is a national of India. He arrived in Hong Kong on 23 February 2015 as a visitor and subsequently overstayed. He surrendered to the Immigration Department on 4 March 2015 and lodged a non-refoulement claim. His claim was made on the basis that, if refouled, he will be killed by his creditor.

Decisions of the Director and the Board

3.By a Notice of Decision dated 3 January 2019, the Director of Immigration rejected the applicant’s non-refoulement claim on all applicable grounds including torture risk[2], BOR 2 risk[3], BOR 3 risk[4] and persecution risk[5]. His appeal was dismissed by the Board on 12 April 2023[6] on the grounds that the applicant’s evidence is vague, generalized, and in parts speculative, inconsistent and contradictory and that he has fabricated his story for his non-refoulement claim.

The judge’s decision

4.The applicant filed a Form 86 and an affirmation on 27 April 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

5.In the Notice of Appeal filed on 22 June 2026, the applicant stated as his ground of appeal that he wants to apply for judicial review because he is not satisfied with the order.

6.His contentions in his written submissions may be summarized as follows:

(1) His case was not determined fairly;

(2) He was not provided with proper legal and language assistance;

(3) The respondent is in breach of procedural fairness in refusing the appeal on the grounds that the requirements were not satisfied and the adjudicator acted in a procedurally unfair manner in dealing with the appeal;

(4) He still has severe problem in his home country;

(5) The respondent’s decision in refusing the appeal was unreasonable or irrational in public law sense or is a result of procedural error or unfairness;

(6) The respondent failed to meet the greater care and duty owed to a self-represented claimant;

(7) The discriminatory act of the authorities towards non-refoulement claimant is unacceptable and is detrimental to the spirit of the judicial system.

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.Interpreter service was provided at the hearings before the Board and at the Court of First Instance. The high standard of fairness required by law would not entail interpretation service being made available to an applicant all the time as he may desire: Re Gurung Sagar [2019] HKCA 658. Besides, the applicant’s notice of appeal and written submissions were written in English. These indicate that the applicant is conversant with the English language or has access to language assistance if needed.

9.As for the ground relating to the lack of legal representation, the Court of Appeal has repeatedly stated that an applicant of non-refoulement claim does not have an absolute right to free legal representation at all stages of the proceedings[7]. The applicant already had the benefit of legal representation in presenting his case to the Director.

10.The remaining grounds are bare assertions without evidence in support. He did not provide any viable ground against the judge’s decision. He 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.

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

The Applicant (Appellant), acting in person, absent