|
HCAL 1837/2025
[2025] HKCFI 5558
IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST No 1837 of 2025
| BETWEEN |
|
|
| |
Daljit Singh |
Applicant |
| |
and |
|
| |
Torture Claims Appeal Board /
Non-Refoulement Claims Petition Office |
Putative Respondent |
| |
and |
|
| |
Director of Immigration |
Putative Interested Party |
Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review
NOTIFICATION of the Judge’s decision (Ord 53 r 3)
Following:
Order by Deputy High Court Judge Levy:
1. The Form 86 be amended on the court’s own motion.
2. The application for leave to apply for judicial review be dismissed.
Observations for the Applicant:
Introduction
1. By a “Notice of application for leave to apply for judicial review” in the prescribed Form 86 filed on 18 August 2025, the applicant applied for leave to apply for judicial review (“Leave Application”). The intended judicial review was against the Chinese decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board / the Non-Refoulement Claims Petition Office (“Board”) dated 31 July 2025 (“Board’s Decision”) dismissing the applicant's appeal against a Chinese decision of the Director of Immigration (“Director”) dated 4 June 2025 (“Director’s Decision”) rejecting the applicant's non-refoulement claim on all applicable grounds. The Board’s Decision can be viewed at the following hyperlink: -
https://legalref.judiciary.hk/doc/judg/html/vetted/other/en/2025/HCAL001837_2025_files/the_Board's_Decision.pdf
2. In his Form 86, the applicant named the Director and the Board as the proposed respondents and did not name any interested party. As the Board should have been the proper respondent and the Director the proper interested party, the Form 86 will be amended accordingly on the court’s own motion.
3. The basis of the applicant’s claim was that if refouled to India, he would be harmed or killed by the money lender for an unpaid load. The Board’s reasoning and findings were set out in detail in the Board’s Decision and it is not necessary for me to repeat them. Unless otherwise specified, I shall also adopt the Board’s abbreviations and descriptions stated in the Board’s Decision.
4. The court received a letter by fax dated 23 October 2025 from the Removal Assessment and Litigation (Removal and Deportation) Section (3) of the Immigration Department informing the court that the applicant wanted to withdraw the Leave Application. Enclosed with the said letter was a handwritten letter in English signed by the applicant requesting for the withdrawal of the Leave Application. A hearing was therefore scheduled on 11 November 2015. Since the applicant was detained in Tai Tam Gap Correctional Institution. A body order was issued to bring the applicant to attend the hearing.
Discussion
5. The leave application operates as a ‘filtering’ process and there is no requirement or expectation to give elaborate reasons for my decision.[1] It is sufficient to state my observations after considering the Board’s Decision and the applicant’s materials adduced.
6. In a proper Form 86, an applicant is required to identify the grounds of judicial review clearly and succinctly[2], and further to make full and frank disclosure of all material facts to be verified by an affidavit. The applicant’s Form 86 and the supporting affirmation provided no such grounds at all.
7. As the Courts have repeatedly stated, a finding of fact is exclusively within the realm of the Board, which a court in a judicial review will not interfere with unless such finding involved an error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality.[3] In the present case, whilst the Board had sympathy for the applicant for having been misled by a Hong Kong resident that he could come to find work in Hong Kong upon using forged documents, the Board nonetheless assessed that the applicant’s account was not credible. The Board also found that the threat posed by the creditor was minimal and could be minimalised further by internal relocation. The Board concluded that internal relocation would be viable. These are findings of fact, which the court in a judicial review will not interfere with, subject to there being any public law errors.
8. Bearing in mind the enhanced standard that should be adopted in scrutinizing the Board’s Decision, this court is satisfied that the Board correctly applied the law relating to all the grounds and observed a high standard of fairness in the Board’s Decision. I find the Board was entitled to reach the conclusion that there was no risk of harm. The applicant has not advanced any grounds to challenge the Board’s Decision. In the circumstances, I find that the applicant has not shown any errors of law or procedural unfairness or irrationality in the Board’s Decision. The applicant’s intended challenge to the Board’s Decision is not reasonably arguable with realistic prospects of success such that would enable this court to grant leave[4].
Withdrawal application
9. At the hearing, the applicant confirmed his intention to withdraw the Leave Application, stating that his family had already repaid the loan. The hand‑written letter referred to [4] above was shown to the applicant who confirmed that it was his signature and understood the contents of the letter. He further confirmed that he made the withdrawal application voluntarily, and that he understood the consequences of the withdrawal. Upon the applicant’s confirmed application to withdraw the Leave Application, there is nothing outstanding in this action. In the circumstances, I make an order to dismiss the Leave Application, and hereby order the dismissal of the Leave Application: see Re Manik Md Mahamudun Nabi [2022] HKCA 471, Ngo Xuan Tuyen v Torture Claims Appeal Board [2024] HKCA 1140.
Order
10. The Form 86 be amended on the court’s own motion.
11. The application for leave to apply for judicial review be dismissed.
Dated the 26th day of November 2025
| |
( Alfred CHAN ) |
| |
for Registrar, High Court |
Where leave to apply has been granted, Applicants and their legal advisers are reminded of their obligation to reconsider the merits of their application in the light of the Respondent’s evidence
Notes for the Applicant:
If leave has been granted, the Applicant or the Applicant’s solicitors must:
|
|
|
|
|
a) serve on the respondent and such interested parties as may be directed by the Court the order granting leave and any directions given within 14 days after the leave was granted (Order 53, rule 4A);
b) issue the originating summons within 14 days after the grant of leave and serve it in accordance with Order 53, rule 5; and
c) supply to every other party copies of every affidavit which the Applicant proposes to use at the hearing, including the affidavit in support of the application for leave (Order 53, rule 6(5)).
|
|
Sent to the Applicant
on 26/11/2025
Daljit Singh
Applicant’s ref. no:
Nil. |
|
Sent to the Putative Respondent / the Putative Respondent’s solicitors / such Putative Interested Parties as may be directed by the Court / the Putative Interested Parties’ solicitors on 26/11/2025
Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office
Putative Respondent’s ref. no.:
USM 26501
Director of Immigration
Putative Interested Party’s ref. no.: QA T/C 919/25 (formerly RBCZ 5000795/25)
Department of Justice,
Senior Assistant Law Officer
(Civil Law)
(Civil Litigation Unit 2)
|
Form CALL-1
[1] Re Zunartyah [2018] HKCA 14 at [23].
[2] Ho Loy & Another v Director of Environmental Protection, HCAL 21/2015, 22 December 2016 at [142].
[3] Re Lakhwinder Singh [2018] HKCA 246; Re Daljit Singh [2018] HKCA 328; Re Mudannayakalage Chaminda Pushpa Kumara [2018] HKCA 400; and Nupur Mst v Director of Immigration [2018] HKCA 524.
[4] Po Fun Chan v Winnie Cheung (2007) 10 HKCFAR 676
|