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

CACV 1110/2025, [2026] HKCA 1547

On Appeal From [2025] HKCFI 5568

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 1110 OF 2025

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 3483 OF 2019)

________________________

BETWEEN

_____________________

_____________________

JUDGMENT

_____________________

The Court:

INTRODUCTION

1.This is the Applicant’s appeal against the order of Deputy High Court Judge Levy (“the Judge”) dated 25 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 21 November 2019 (“the Board’s Decision”).

BACKGROUND

2.The Applicant is a national of India.  On 5 July 2016, the Applicant 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.[1]  The Applicant’s non-refoulement claim was rejected by the Director of Immigration (“the Director”) on 31 May 2018, and the appeal against the Director’s decision was rejected by the Board on 21 November 2019.  Details of the Applicant’s claim and the Board’s reasons for rejecting the Applicant’s appeals can be found in the Board’s Decision, the hyperlink to which can be found in the Form CALL-1 dated 25 November 2025.[2]

3.The Applicant’s application for leave to apply for judicial review was refused by the Judge on 25 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 28 November 2025, the Applicant states the following that:

“1. The Applicant submits that the Director, the Adjudicator, and the Court have failed to take such argument into account or that the Director has failed to give sufficient weight to such argument before reaching the Decision.

2. The Director’s Decision, it was evident that the director had failed to appreciate or give the proper importance or weight to the presence of state Acquiescence in the Applicant’s case. This has indeed led to an unfair outcome of rejecting the Applicant’s non-refoulement claim.

3. The Adjudicator failed to make a sufficient inquiry before finalizing the determination. The Adjudicator stated that the applicant had failed to provide any credible evidence to prove the material elements of his claim.

4. The adjudicator has failed to give a sufficient chance to the applicant to arrange relevant evidence for his non-refoulement claim as well as his appeal.

5. Surprisingly, the director, in his Decision, while referring to relevant COIs. Kept including meaning which suited his pre-conceived conclusion. This was a clean case of unfair attitude shown by the Director, which in itself is enough to render his Decision void.” (sic)

5.In the skeleton argument lodged on 25 June 2026, the Applicant reiterates the general principles about the “high standards of fairness” required in determination of a torture claim on the part of the decision maker.  It is submitted that the Adjudicator had acted in a procedurally unfair manner in dealing with the Applicant’s application.  No arguments are advanced as to how the Judge has erred.

6.At the hearing on 12 August 2026, the applicant confirmed that he had nothing to add.

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.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.

10.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. 

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

The Applicant appeared in person

[1] Form CALL-1, §3.

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