Sekh Amam v. Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office

CACV 856/2025, [2026] HKCA 1871

On appeal from [2025] HKCFI 4491

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 856 OF 2025

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 1859 OF 2020)

________________________

BETWEEN

________________________

_____________________

J U D G M E N T

_____________________

Hon Kwan VP (giving the Judgment of the Court):

Background

1.This is an appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge Martin Wong dated 30 September 2025[1] refusing 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.  The applicant filed a written consent for this appeal to be disposed of on paper without an oral hearing.  He was subsequently removed from Hong Kong in the period between April and May 2026.  Thus, we will deal with this appeal on paper.

2.The applicant is a national of India.  He lodged a torture claim on 30 March 2012, which was dismissed on 27 December 2013 and the relevant appeal was dismissed on 3 April 2014.  He also lodged a non-refoulement claim.  His claim was made on the basis that, if refouled, he would be harmed and killed by his creditor, a member of an opposing political party who wanted to replace him at his job.

Decisions of the Director and the Board

3.By the Notice of Decision dated 31 October 2017, the Director of Immigration (“the Director”) rejected the applicant’s non-refoulement claim on all applicable grounds including BOR 2 risk[2], BOR 3 risk[3] and persecution risk[4], except torture risk[5] (as his torture claim had already been rejected).  His appeal was dismissed by the Board on 11 March 2020[6].

The judge’s decision

4.The applicant filed a Form 86 on 17 September 2020 out of time to seek leave to apply for judicial review against the decision of the Board.  His application was dismissed by the judge on 30 September 2025.

Grounds of appeal

5.In the notice of appeal filed on 8 October 2025, the applicant stated that his dangerous situation was disregarded.

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

(1)  His situation should be protected by BOR 2;

(2)  The court refused his leave application but did not assess the actual situation in India;

(3)  India has long been a country that is fraught with problems on human rights issues.  Its police and government have been known for corruption and ineffectiveness.  There is increasing threat posed by Hindu extremists on Christians and Muslims in India;

(4)  In Amnesty International’s human rights reports on India, it is noted that the police used violence across the country;

(5)  The country of origin information stated by the Board was based on simple documents without understanding the cultural context in India.  State protection is not working in India and this should be the main factor to be considered.

Legal principles

7.The Court of Appeal’s general approach in dealing with appeals in non-refoulement cases is set out in Nupur Mst v Director of Immigration [2018] HKCA 524 at §14. 

Analysis and disposition

8.The Board stated in its decision there is no suggestion that the applicant’s right under BOR 2 would be violated.  The applicant’s submission in the present application that his situation should be protected under BOR 2 is just a bare assertion without any particulars or evidence in support.

9.More importantly, the applicant did not provide any evidence to refute the Board’s finding that he lied about the alleged dealings with his creditor.  He failed to show any errors of law or procedural unfairness or irrationality in the findings of the Board.

10.The appeal is devoid of merits and is dismissed accordingly.

The Applicant (Appellant), acting in person