Rakesh Kumar v. Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office
|
CACV 1111/2025, [2026] HKCA 1548 On Appeal From [2025] HKCFI 5326 IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION COURT OF APPEAL CIVIL APPEAL NO 1111 OF 2025 (ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 1424 OF 2020) ________________________ BETWEEN
_____________________
_____________________ REASONS FOR JUDGMENT _____________________ The Court: INTRODUCTION 1.This is the Applicant’s appeal against the order of Deputy High Court Judge (Non-refoulement claims) YW Hew (“the Judge”) dated 21 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 19 November 2018 (“the Board’s Decision”). BACKGROUND 2.The Applicant is a national of India. On 28 November 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 people because of a land dispute, and as he had assaulted his uncle’s son in revenge. The Applicant’s non-refoulement claim was rejected by the Director of Immigration (“the Director”) on 14 February 2018, and the appeal against the Director’s decision was rejected by the Board on 19 November 2018. 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 21 November 2025.[1] 3.The Applicant’s application for leave to apply for judicial review was refused by the Judge on 21 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:
5.In the skeleton argument lodged on 6 July 2025, 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.The Applicant was absent at the hearing on 12 August 2026. We dismissed his appeal with reasons for judgment to be handed down later, 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.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, unrepresented, did not appear [1] Hyperlink to the Board’s Decision in Form CALL-1, §1. |
Cases cited in this judgment