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

CACV 1101/2025, [2026] HKCA 1545

On Appeal From [2025] HKCFI 5508

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 1101 OF 2025

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 1163 OF 2025)

________________________

BETWEEN

_____________________

_____________________

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

_____________________

The Court:

INTRODUCTION

1.This is the Applicant’s appeal against the order of Deputy High Court Judge K.W. Lung (“the Judge”) dated 19 November 2025 (“the Order”) refusing to grant leave to apply for judicial review of the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office (“the Board”) dated 13 May 2025 (“the Board’s Decision”).  

BACKGROUND

2.The Applicant is a national of India.  The Applicant previously lodged a non-refoulement claim on the basis that, if refouled, he would be harmed or killed by his uncle and his son due to a land dispute.  The Applicant’s claim was rejected by the Director of Immigration (“the Director”) on7 February 2025, and the appeal against the Director’s decision was rejected by the Board on13 May 2025.  Details of the Applicant’s claim and the Board’s reasons for rejecting the Applicant’s appeal can be found in the Board’s Decision, the hyperlink to which can be found in the Form CALL-1 dated 19 November 2025.[1]

3.The Applicant’s application for leave to apply for judicial review was refused by the Judge on19 November 2025.  Details of the Judge’s reasons for refusing to grant leave can be found in the Form CALL-1.

GROUNDS OF APPEAL

4.In the Notice of Appeal filed on 27 November 2025, the Applicant states the following that:

“I am disagree with the decision maker authorities. The High Court Judge never heared me in Person and gave Judgment on paper I do not have any opportunity for an oral hearing. This is totally unfair to me and dismissed my case quickly as possible. I do not think my case determined fairly.” (sic)

5.In the skeleton argument lodged on 9 July 2026, apart from reiterating the basis of his non-refoulement claim, the Applicant essentially argues that:

(1)  The Applicant did not have legal and language assistance in the hearings before the Board and the Judge.

(2)  The Board erred in law, acted irrationally, or failed to take into account the Applicant’s specific evidence, in its assessment of internal relocation.

(3)  The Board’s assessment of state acquiescence under the Torture and BOR 3 grounds failed to adequately address the uncle’s alleged connection to a public official.

6.At the hearing on 12 August 2026, the Applicant was absent.  We dismissed his appeal with reasons to be handed down, which we now do.

DISCUSSION & DISPOSITION

7.In an appeal against refusal of leave to apply for judicial review in non-refoulement cases, the Court of Appeal would only examine the decision of the judge in light of the grounds advanced by the applicant.  If no viable ground is put forward to reverse the judge’s decision, the appeal should be dismissed.  The Court of Appeal’s role is not to examine the Board’s decision afresh as if it was a fresh application for judicial review (see Nupur Mst v Director of Immigration [2018] HKCA 524, at §14(6)).

8.The assessment of evidence, country of origin information, risk of harm, state protection and viability of internal relocation are primarily within the province of the Board and the Director. 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: Re Kartini [2019] HKCA 1022.  

9.Regarding the lack of legal and language assistance, it has been repeatedly emphasised by this Court that as a matter of law, a non-refoulement claimant is not entitled to free legal representation at all stages of the process and that the high standard of fairness required by law does not entail interpretation service being made available to an applicant all the time as he desires: Re Pante Luisa Tuppil [2025] HKCA 1123 at [11].

10.As to the complaint of no hearing before the Judge, it was the Applicant who did not request an oral hearing of the leave application.[2]  Albeit the Applicant’s absence, the Judge did examine the Board’s Decision with rigorous examination and anxious scrutiny and consider what the Applicant said in the Form 86 and his supporting affirmation before reaching his conclusion that the Applicant failed to show any realistic prospect of success in his intended judicial review.[3]

11.The matters raised in the Applicant’s Notice of Appeal and skeleton argument are all general allegations without particulars.  They do not constitute any valid grounds of appeal against the Judge’s decision.

12.The Applicant has failed to identify or show any error in the Judge’s decision refusing to grant leave to apply for judicial review, or raise any viable ground of appeal against the Order. 

13.The Applicant’s appeal has no merit, and is dismissed.

The Applicant, unrepresented, did not appear

[1] Hyperlink to the Board’s Decision in Form CALL-1, §5

[2] Form CALL-1, §2

[3] CALL-1 Form, §11-12, 14, 16