Case Document

100%

CACV 724/2026, [2026] HKCA 1503

On Appeal From [2026] HKCFI 3623

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 724 OF 2026

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO. 1032 OF 2021)

____________________

BETWEEN

	DALJIT SINGH	Applicant
	and
	TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD	Putative Respondent
	and
	DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION	Putative Interested Party

____________________

Before:

Hon Anthony Chan JA and Ng J in Court

Date of Hearing:	25 August 2026
Date of Judgment:	8 September 2026

________________

JUDGMENT

________________

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

1.This is the Applicant’s appeal against the order of Deputy High Court Judge Michael Wong (“Judge”) dated 24 June 2026 (“Order”) refusing to grant leave to apply for judicial review of the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office (“Board”) dated 7 July 2021 (“Board’s Decision”) whereby the Board dismissed his appeal against the decision of the Director of Immigration (“Director”) dated 15 August 2018 (“Director’s Decision”).

2.The Applicant is a national of India. He lodged a non-refoulement claim with the Immigration Department on the basis that, if refouled, his life would be at risk from the Congress Party (“INC”) people because he refused to stop his campaign for Akali Dal and join the INC. The Applicant’s non-refoulement claim was rejected by the Director, and his appeal against it was rejected by the Board. 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 24 June 2026 at [1].

3.The Applicant’s 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 6 July 2026, the Applicant seeks to appeal the Order to this Court. For the grounds of appeal, the Applicant stated that :

“I do not agree with the decision of the Court of First Instance. The court did not scrutinize my claim properly. Despite my problem in my home country is very severe the Court of First Instance and the Torture Claims Appeal Board rejected my claim. The decision makers considered my claims as a simply. If I return to my country I will be killed by my enemies.”

5.The Applicant’s skeleton argument lodged on 14 July 2026 set out numerous general and unparticularised allegations about deficiencies in the Director’s Decision, the Board’s Decision and the Judge’s decision (such as unreasonableness, irrationality, procedural unfairness and the allegation that “the learned Judge reviewed the matter lightly”). The Applicant did not refer to any specific part of the Director’s Decision, the Board’s Decision or the Judge’s decision or to any particulars of his non-refoulement claim. The skeleton argument also contained general statements of fears about hardship and being attacked, tortured and killed by enemies if the Applicant is refouled.

6.At the hearing of this appeal, the Applicant said that he is now married in Hong Kong and has a 10-month-old child.

7.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)].

8.The grounds contained the Notice of Appeal and the Applicant’s skeleton argument were not raised by the Applicant in the application below (see Form CALL-1, [6], [8]-[9]). The Applicant is not entitled to raise them for the first time in this Court. In any event, those grounds are bare allegations without substance. The Applicant has failed to identify any error in the Judge’s decision. General assertions of fear if refouled do not constitute proper grounds of appeal: see Re Saldua Dorothy Trifalgar [2022] HKCA 627 at [6]. There is no viable ground of appeal. The Judge had examined the findings in the Board’s Decision and detected no errors of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the Board’s Decision (Form CALL-1, [12-22]). We see no basis to interfere with the Judge’s decision.

9.The Applicant’s skeleton argument comprises template complaints widely used in cases of the present type. This same template was used by three other applicants whose appeals were scheduled to be heard by this Court on the same day as the Applicant’s appeal (CACV 523/2026, CACV 728/2026 and CACV 735/2026). However, the four applicants have different backgrounds and factual bases for their non-refoulement claims. These template complaints simply do not advance the Applicant’s appeal against the Order.

10.For the above reasons, the Applicant’s appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs.