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

CACV 999/2025, [2026] HKCA 1631

On Appeal From [2025] HKCFI 3016

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 999 OF 2025

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 885 OF 2020)

____________

BETWEEN

____________

_________________

J U D G M E N T

_________________

Hon G Lam JA (giving the Judgment of the Court):

Introduction

1.This is an appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge (Non-Refoulement Claims) Teresa Wu (“Judge”) on 3 November 2025 dismissing the applicant’s application for leave to apply for judicial review against the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board/adjudicator of the Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office (“Board”) dated 16 April 2020. In that decision, the Board upheld the decision of the Director of Immigration (“Director”) dated 21 September 2018 rejecting the applicant’s non-refoulement claim.

Background

2.The applicant is a national of India born in 1978 and his claim was made on the basis that if he returned to India, his paternal uncles would harm or kill him due to a land dispute. Details of the applicant’s background, the basis of his claim and arguments advanced before the Board as well as the Board’s reasons for rejecting his appeal are all set out in the Board’s decision: see [3] of the Form CALL-1. The Judge has set out the grounds advanced by the applicant in support of the application and his reasons for refusal of the application: see [4] – [7] of the Form CALL-1.

Appeal to this Court

3.On 11 November 2025, the applicant filed his Notice of Appeal against the Judge’s decision. His stated grounds of appeal were, essentially, that the Director and the Board did not give weight to the gravity of his circumstances and that he should be given an opportunity to plead his case properly.

4.The applicant has given consent in writing for this appeal to be disposed of on paper without an oral hearing. On 19 March 2026, the court was notified by the Director that the applicant had been removed from Hong Kong in March 2026. We shall accordingly determine the appeal on the basis of the available documents and materials.

5.The applicant has lodged written submissions in which he recited general legal principles in relation to the high standard of fairness, Wednesbury unreasonableness, and the late filing of the notice of appeal under section 37ZT of the Immigration Ordinance (Cap. 115). He also stated that the Board acted procedurally unfairly by not properly assessing his credibility, but did not provide any particulars.

Discussion

6.In assessing the merits of the appeal, we shall have regard to the legal principles which this Court has adopted in dealing with appeals in non-refoulement cases: see Nupur Mst v Director of Immigration [2018] HKCA 524 at [14]; Re Md Shohel Sheak [2018] HKCA 714 at [13]; and Re Limbu Birkhaman [2019] HKCA 50 at [11]. In particular, the role of the Court in a judicial review is not to provide a further avenue of appeal. 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. In the determination of an appeal against the refusal of leave by the Court of First Instance, the Court of Appeal will 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. It is not the role of this Court to examine the decision of the Board afresh as if the appeal were a fresh application for judicial review.

7.In the present case, the Board found that there was no real risk of harm upon refoulement as alleged, because, given the inconsistencies of the applicant’s oral evidence and documentary evidence, the Board attached very little weight to it. Nevertheless, the Board considered the applicant’s case in its entirety in light of the country of origin information, and found that there was no state involvement, that the past ill-treatment had not attained the minimum level of severity, that state protection would be available, and that internal relocation to New Delhi and Mumbai would be viable for the applicant. These are findings of fact open to the Board based on the evidence it received and for the reasons it gave. The applicant has failed to show any reasonably arguable public law error in relation to the Board’s decision.

8.Equally, the applicant has not been able to demonstrate any error in the decision of the Judge or advance any viable ground of appeal against the Judge’s decision. We are not satisfied that there is any error in the Judge’s decision.

9.The applicant’s appeal is accordingly dismissed.

The Applicant, unrepresented, acting in person