Bhardwaj Ramandeep Kaur and Another v. Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office

CACV 190/2026, [2026] HKCA 1504

On Appeal From [2026] HKCFI 824

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 190 OF 2026

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO. 1675 OF 2020)

____________________

BETWEEN

____________________

________________

JUDGMENT

________________

Hon Anthony Chan JA (giving the Judgment of the Court) :

1.This is the Applicants’ appeal against the order of Deputy High Court Judge K.W. Lung (“Judge”) dated 16 February 2026 (“Order”) refusing to grant leave to apply for judicial review of the decisions of the Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office (“Board”) dated 22 December 2017 (in respect of the 1^st Applicant) (“Board’s 1^st Decision”) and dated 12 June 2020 (in respect of the 2^nd Applicant) (“Board’s 2^nd Decision”) whereby the Board dismissed their respective appeals against the decisions of the Director of Immigration (“Director”) dated 22 June 2016 and 7 August 2017 (in respect of the 1^st Applicant) and 19 June 2019 (in respect of the 2^nd Applicant).

2.The Applicants are nationals of India. The 1^st Applicant is the mother of the 2^nd Applicant, who is a minor. They lodged non-refoulement claims with the Immigration Department on the basis that, if refouled, they will be harmed or killed by the family of the 1^st Applicant because they disproved the marriage between the 1^st Applicant and the father of the 2^nd Applicant who is of different religions and castes. The Applicants’ non-refoulement claims were rejected by the Director, and their appeals were rejected by the Board. Details of the Applicants’ claims and the Board’s reasons for rejecting the Applicants’ appeals can be found in the Board’s 1^st Decision and Board’s 2^nd Decision, the hyperlinks to which can be found in the Form CALL-1 dated 16 February 2026 at [11].

3.The Applicants’ application for leave to apply for judicial review was refused by the Judge and details of the Judge’s reasons for refusing to grant leave can be found in the Form CALL-1.

4.By a Notice of Appeal filed on 2 March 2026, the Applicants seeks to appeal the Order to this Court. For the grounds of appeal, the Applicants stated that :

“I do not agree with the decision of the Court of First Instance. As my problem is severe but the Court and the Torture Claims Appeal Board considered my matter lightly.”

5.This appeal was scheduled to be heard on 25 August 2026. The Applicants have failed to lodge any skeleton argument in support of their appeal in accordance with the directions given by the Registrar of Civil Appeals on 14 July 2026. Accordingly, the Applicants are deemed to have waived their rights to have an oral hearing of the appeal and elected to have the appeal disposed of on paper. Having considered the documents before us, we consider that it is appropriate to deal with the Applicants’ appeal on paper without an oral hearing.

6.The general approach of this Court in dealing with appeals in non-refoulement cases has been set out in Nupur Mst v Director of Immigration [2018] HKCA 524 at [14]. In particular, in an appeal against refusal of leave to apply for judicial review in non-refoulement cases, this Court 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. This Court’s role is not to examine the Board’s decision afresh as if it is a fresh application for judicial review: see Nupur Mst at [14(6)].

7.The grounds contained the Notice of Appeal have no substance. The Judge was satisfied that the Board had applied a high standard of fairness in the assessment of the appeals and had considered the 2^nd Applicant’s situation separately from that of his mother, the 1^st Applicant (Form CALL-1, [25]-[27]). The Judge did not find any child specific issues that were not brought to the Board’s consideration because of the lack of legal presentation for the 2^nd Applicant (Form CALL-1, [27]). The Applicants have failed to identify any error in the Judge’s decision. There is no viable ground of appeal. We see no basis to interfere with the Judge’s decision.

8.In the premises, this appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs.

9.For the avoidance of doubt, we shall treat the non-compliance with Order 80, Rule 2 of the Rules of High Court, Cap 4A in these proceedings as a mere irregularity without rendering the 2^nd Applicant’s application a nullity.

The Applicant acting in person