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

CACV 831/2026, [2026] HKCA 1768

On appeal from [2026] HKCFI 4277

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 831 OF 2026

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO. 147 OF 2026)

_________________

BETWEEN

_________________

_________________

J U D G M E N T

_________________

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

Background

1.On 29 July 2026, Deputy High Court Judge Michael Wong 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 10 August 2026.

2.The applicant is a national of India.  He last arrived in Hong Kong on 24 March 2025 as a visitor and subsequently overstayed.  He was arrested by the police on 11 September 2025.  He lodged his non‑refoulement claim on 19 September 2025.  His claim was made on the basis that, if refouled, he will be harmed or killed by his uncle due to a land dispute. 

3.By a Notice of Decision dated 19 November 2025, the Director of Immigration rejected the applicant’s non-refoulement claim.  His appeal was dismissed by the Board on 31 December 2025[2].  

The judge’s decision

4.The applicant filed a Form 86 and an affirmation on 13 January 2026 to seek leave to apply for judicial review against the decision of the Board.  His leave application was dismissed by the judge on 29 July 2026.

Grounds of appeal

5.In his Notice of Appeal filed on 10 August 2026, the applicant stated the following grounds of appeal:

(1)  The judge was wrong to refuse leave because the applicant’s case is arguable and should be heard fully;

(2)  The judge did not apply anxious scrutiny even though this is a a non‑refoulement case involving risk of serious harm to the applicant;

(3)  The judge wrongly treated the applicant’s case as only a disagreement as to facts but the case also raises legal errors and unfairness;

(4)  The Board did not properly assess the applicant’s fear of harm from his uncle or enemies due to the land dispute;

(5)  The Board wrongly found that the applicant was not credible and relied too much on the alleged inconsistencies;

(6)  The Board placed too much weight on missing documents, even though it is difficult for the applicant to obtain documents from India;

(7)  The Board did not properly consider whether police protection in India would really be available and effective for the applicant;

(8)  The Board did not properly consider whether internal relocation in India would be safe and reasonable for the applicant;

(9)  The decision was unfair and unreasonable in all the circumstances.

Analysis and disposition 

6.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. 

7.In his written submissions, the applicant submitted that the judge had failed to recognize the erroneous findings of the Board according to procedural fairness and proper application of the law.  He submitted that the Board’s decision was made without giving the applicant a fair opportunity to fully present and substantiate his grounds.  He also submitted that the Board’s conclusion regarding his credibility was based on an incomplete and narrow assessment of the evidence.  He further submitted that the judge had erred in affirming the Board’s assessment of risk and internal relocation options, without considering whether the Board had properly applied the high standards relating to non-refoulement claims.

8.The applicant had attended the hearing before the Board and the Board did raise questions with him on the issues where inconsistencies were observed.  The applicant’s answers failed to convince the Board.  There is no proper basis for the applicant to allege that the Board had placed too much reliance on the lack of documentary proof.  More importantly, the Board held that the applicant’s claim would still fail even if his evidence were to be accepted[3]. The applicant did not identify or adduce any evidence to refute the Board’s findings.  He also failed to properly identify any particular error in the application of law made by the Board as alleged.  In addition, he failed to demonstrate any procedural unfairness or irregularities as alleged.

9.His grounds and submissions against the judge are merely bare assertions without particulars and evidence in support.  The judge gave detailed reasons in his decision.  We consider the judge’s decision to be well founded and supported by sound reasons.  The applicant failed to demonstrate that the judge had made any error of law or failed to take account of relevant matters placed before the court or was otherwise plainly wrong.

10.For the above reasons, we found the appeal devoid of merit and dismiss it accordingly.

The Applicant (Appellant), acting in person, absent

[1]  [2026] HKCFI 4277

[2]  The Board’s decision can be accessed via the following hyperlink: https://legalref.judiciary.hk/doc/judg/html/vetted/other/en/2026/HCAL000147_2026_files/the_Board's_Decision.pdf

[3]  Bundle p25: §§70-78 of the Board’s decision