Nontathen Charanrat v. Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office
|
CACV 713/2026, [2026] HKCA 1514 On Appeal From [2026] HKCFI 3532 IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION COURT OF APPEAL CIVIL APPEAL NO 713 OF 2026 (ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 1495 OF 2023) __________________________ BETWEEN
__________________________
________________ J U D G M E N T ________________ Hon Mimmie Chan J (giving the Judgment of the Court): 1.This is an appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge Michael Wong (“the Judge”) given on 17 June 2026[1] (“the Leave Decision”) refusing to grant leave for the applicant to apply for judicial review. The intended judicial review[2] was against the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board/adjudicator of the Non-Refoulement Claims Petition Office (“the Board”) dated 15 August 2023 (“the Board’s Decision”) dismissing the applicant’s appeal against the decision of the Director of Immigration dated 18 July 2022 rejecting the applicant’s non-refoulement claim. 2.The applicant’s background, the basis of her claim and the Board’s reasons in reaching the Board’s Decision have been set out therein[3] as well as by the Judge in the Leave Decision at [16]-[21], which will not be repeated. 3.The applicant did not request for an oral hearing for the leave application. After considering the documents filed by the applicant, the Judge dismissed the application for the reasons stated at [12]-[25] of the Leave Decision. Appeal to this court 4.In a Notice of Appeal dated 29 June 2026, the applicant stated without elaboration or particulars that “the decisions are unlawful”, “the decisions failed to take into account many things and issues”, and that her life would be in danger should she be refouled. 5.By written submissions dated 20 July 2026, the applicant repeated her personal background and the factual basis to her claim. Insofar as is relevant to the Board’s Decision, the applicant contended that the Board failed to make “sufficient enquiring before finalising the determination”, and that as a torture claimant she had limited “options at [her] disposal” to obtain evidence for the purpose of substantiating her claim. 6.We heard the appeal on 18 August 2026, at which the applicant was absent. We will therefore determine the appeal on the basis of the materials already filed with the Court. Discussion 7.As this court has often stated, an appeal to the Court of Appeal is not a fresh application for judicial review. It is necessary to identify some error on the part of the judge that would justify this court in intervening: see Nupur Mst v Director of Immigration [2018] HKCA 524 at [14]. The court will not intervene by way of judicial review unless there are errors of law or procedural unfairness or irrationality in the decision of the Board. An appeal is not the occasion for regurgitating arguments advanced and rejected by the judge or for running arguments which could and should have been raised but were not raised before the judge. In the determination of an appeal, the Court of Appeal focuses on the decision of the judge and the court will only reverse that decision if an appellant could demonstrate that the judge made errors of law or failed to take account of relevant matters already placed before the court or was otherwise plainly wrong. 8.The applicant has failed to identify any error on the part of the Judge and thus failed to raise any viable ground of appeal. The points advanced by the applicant were bare assertions unsupported by particulars or evidence. 9.In the present case, the Board considered that the material parts of the applicant’s evidence, on which her alleged fear of harm from a creditor due to her inability to repay a loan was based, was lacking in credibility. The Board specifically rejected, as a matter of fact, the applicant’s claims that she borrowed money from the creditor and that she was threatened by the creditor because of her default in repayment. These were factual findings open to the Board, and were sufficiently canvassed and considered by the Judge in the Leave Decision at [6]-[16]. We see no basis to interfere. 10.The applicant has accordingly failed to demonstrate how the Board had acted unlawfully or procedurally unfairly in reaching its Decision, or how such Decision could be said to be Wednesbury unreasonable. 11.As we have noted, the applicant advanced no viable grounds of appeal against the Judge’s decision. There is therefore no merit in the appeal and we dismiss the appeal accordingly.
The applicant, unrepresented, did not appear [2] Per the Form 86 as amended by the Court on its own motion. [3] https://legalref.judiciary.hk/doc/judg/html/vetted/other/en/2023/HCAL001495_2023_files/the_Board's_Decision.pdf |