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

CACV 818/2026, [2026] HKCA 1762

On appeal from [2026] HKCFI 3956

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 818 OF 2026

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO. 1661 OF 2025)

_________________

BETWEEN

_________________

_________________

J U D G M E N T

_________________

Hon Tam J (giving the Judgment of the Court):

Background

1.On 30 July 2026, Deputy High Court Judge K W Lung refused to grant leave for the applicant to apply for judicial review against the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board (“the Board”) concerning his non‑refoulement claim[1]. The applicant filed a Notice of Appeal against the said decision on 7 August 2026.

2.The applicant is a national of India.  He entered Hong Kong illegally on 13 August 2024 and surrendered to the Immigration Department on 23 September 2024.  He lodged his non-refoulement claim on 4 November 2024 on the basis that he will be harmed or killed by his girlfriend’s father because he is Sikh while his girlfriend is from a Hindu family.

3.By a Notice of Decision dated 11 April 2025, the Director of Immigration (“the Director”) rejected the applicant’s non-refoulement claim on all applicable grounds.  His appeal was dismissed by the Board on 19 June 2025[2].

The judge’s decision

4.The applicant filed a Form 86 and an affirmation on 23 July 2025 to seek leave to apply for judicial review against the decision of the Board.  His leave application was dismissed by the judge on 30 July 2026.

Grounds of appeal

5.In his Notice of Appeal filed on 7 August 2026, the applicant stated the following grounds of appeal:

(1)  the applicant will face hardship if he is to return to his home country;

(2)  the Board had significantly relied on the source of news which is not officially recognized or is simply hearsay and relied on some outdated cases.  The lack of credible source of information resulted in the making of groundless speculations.

6.He put forward the following further contentions in his written submissions:

(1)  High standards of fairness are required in the determination of torture claims.  The Board failed to scrutinize and adopted a general practice of not to question or find fault with the Director’s decision;

(2)  The decision maker is under a duty to act fairly.

Analysis and disposition

7.The general principles regarding an appeal in a non‑refoulement case have been set out comprehensively by the Court of Appeal in Nupur Mst v Director of Immigration [2018] HKCA 524 at §14.

8.In this appeal, the applicant failed to provide any evidence and sufficient particulars to support his grounds and submissions.  He did not adduce any evidence to refute the findings of the Board, nor did he identify any mistake in the decision of the judge.

9.Therefore, the appeal is devoid of merit and is dismissed accordingly.

The Applicant (Appellant), acting in person

[1]  [2026] HKCFI 3956

[2]  The Board’s decision can be accessed via the following hyperlink: https://legalref.judiciary.hk/doc/judg/html/vetted/other/en/2025/HCAL001661_2025_files/the_Board's_Decision.pdf