Re Chumkhamnoi Nirut Alias Phontarak Chokchai Alias Khotphan Paramet

CACV 743/2026, [2026] HKCA 1683

On Appeal From [2026] HKCFI 3691

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 743 OF 2026

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 1533 OF 2025)

_______________

_______________

_______________

J U D G M E N T

_______________

Hon Au JA (giving the Judgment of the Court):

1.This is the applicant’s appeal against the order of Deputy High Court Judge KW Lung (“the Judge”) dated 30 June 2026 ([2026] HKCFI 3691) (“the Leave Decision”) dismissing his application for leave to apply for judicial review (“the Leave Application”) against the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office (“the Board”) dated 17 June 2025 (“the Board’s Decision”), whereby the Board dismissed his appeal against the decision of the Director of Immigration (“the Director”) dated 2 April 2025 (“the Director’s Decision”), refusing his non‑refoulement claim.

2.The applicant is a national of Thailand.  The basis of his non‑refoulement claim is, if refouled, he would be harmed or killed by his creditor because he was unable to repay his loan.  His 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 [4] ‑ [10] of the Leave Decision.  The Judge has set out his reasons for refusing the Leave Application at [11] ‑ [17] of the Leave Decision.  We will not repeat the details herein.

3.By the Notice of Appeal filed on 14 July 2026, the applicant claimed:

“1. The decisions are unlawful.

2. The Decisions failed to take into account many things and assues.

3. I have life’s danger in my home country, so why, I can’t go back to my Home Country. Please help me to save my life.” (sic)

4.In support of his appeal, the applicant also lodged written submissions on 27 July 2026.  In those submissions, he reiterated the factual history of his non-refoulement claim.  He then complained against the Director’s Decision on the basis that that the Director failed to appreciate or give importance to the factor of state acquiescence and that there was a lack of state protection in Thailand.  He further asserted that the corruption and incompetency of the administration in Thailand remained a serious problem and that the Director had failed to attain a high standard of fairness.  Regarding the Board’s Decision, he complained that the Board had failed to make sufficient enquiry before finalising the determination and that the Board had failed to give him sufficient chance to arrange for relevant evidence in support of his claim and his appeal.

5.We heard the appeal on 2 September 2026.  A Thai interpreter was also present to provide language assistance.  During the hearing, the applicant confirmed that he had nothing to add to his written materials.

DISCUSSION

6.The relevant legal principles governing appeals in non‑refoulement cases are set out in Nupur Mst v Director of Immigration [2018] HKCA 524 at [14].

7.In particular, in an appeal against refusal of leave to apply for judicial review in non-refoulement cases, 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.  The Court’s role is not to examine the decision maker’s decision afresh as if it were a fresh application for judicial review.  See Nupur Mst v Director of Immigration [2018] HKCA 524 at [14(6)].

8.At the outset, the assertions made by the applicant are mainly new grounds not raised before the Judge.  It is well established that this Court will generally not entertain new arguments which are fact‑and‑evidence sensitive which have not been canvassed at the Court of First Instance and for which leave has not been sought within time: Nupur Mst v Director of Immigration [2018] HKCA 524 at [14]; Re Gurpreet Singh [2021] HKCA 1740 at [15].  On this basis alone, his appeal must be dismissed.

9.In any event, we see no merit in his contentions. Nowhere in his Notice of Appeal did the applicant identify any error in the Leave Decision with specific particulars.  His assertions are all directed at the Board and the Director, and are general and bare allegations unsupported by particulars or evidence.  Plainly, they are not proper grounds of appeal.  In any event, the Board had given the applicant ample opportunities, both orally and in writing, to present his case[1]. Both the Board and the Judge had also thoroughly considered the applicant’s case and given detailed reasons for their respective decisions.  General assertions of fear if refouled do not constitute proper grounds of appeal: Re Saldua Dorothy Trifalgar [2022] HKCA 627 at [6].  We see no merit in the applicant’s assertions and there is no basis to interfere with the Leave Decision.

10.For completeness, his complaints against the Director’s Decision are invalid as his intended judicial review is against the Board’s Decision and not the Director’s Decision.  It is also trite that once the applicant had pursued his appeal to the Board, the Board’s Decision superseded the Director’s Decision rendering the latter not susceptible to judicial review: Re Moshsin Ali [2018] HKCA 549 at [45].

11.For the above reasons, the applicant’s appeal against the Leave Decision is hereby dismissed.

The applicant acting in person