CHAHAL DALJEET SINGH v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

HCAL 981/2020

[2025] HKCFI 4068

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST No. 981 of 2020

Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review
NOTIFICATION of the Judge’s decision (Ord. 53 r. 3)

Following:

	consideration of the documents only;            or
	consideration of the documents and oral submissions by the Applicant in open court;

1.  The Form 86 be amended on the court’s own motion.

2.  The applicant’s application for leave to apply for judicial review be dismissed.

Observations for the Applicant:

Introduction

1.  By a “Notice of application to apply for leave for judicial review” in the prescribed Form 86 filed on 25 May 2020, the applicant applied for leave to apply for judicial review (“Leave Application”).  The intended judicial review was against the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board / the Non-Refoulement Claims Petition Office (“Board”) dated 14 May 2020 (“Board’s Decision”) dismissing the applicant's appeal against a decision of the Director of Immigration (“Director”) dated 13 June 2018 (“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/2020/HCAL000981_2020_files/the_Board's_Decision.pdf

2.   In the Form 86, the applicant named the Board as the interested party. As the Director should have been 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 he would be harmed or killed by his in-laws who opposed to his marriage to his wife, because he is a Sikh while she and her family are Hindus.  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.  At the applicant’s request for a hearing of the Leave Application, this court scheduled a hearing on 17 June 2025.  The applicant attended the hearing in person.  After having heard from him, this court informed him that the decision would be reserved, and be sent to his updated address.

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.   

7.  In his Form 86, the applicant did not raise any grounds for judicial review. In his supporting affirmation, he stated that he could not go back to his country because his life would not be safe there.

8.  At the hearing, this court asked the applicant whether he had any grounds he wished to submit in support of the Leave Application.  He had nothing to say despite the court having reminded him that he had not provided any written grounds.

9.  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, the Board found that the material aspects of the applicant’s evidence - his account of detention and assault by police and the assaults by his brothers-in-law and other relatives of his wife- incredible and implausible. The Board concluded that state protection and internal relocation would be available.  The Board therefore found that the applicant failed to prove that there were genuine and substantial risks of harm if refouled. These are findings of fact, which the court in a judicial review will not interfere with, subject to there being any public law errors.

10.  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.  I am satisfied that the Board was entitled to reject the applicant’s account of events after the applicant failed to offer satisfactory explanation for the inconsistencies of the evidence.   The applicant has not advanced any grounds, whether written or oral, in support of the Leave Application. 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].

Orders

11.  The Form 86 be amended on the court’s own motion.

12.  The applicant’s application for leave to apply for judicial review be dismissed.

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

Form CALL-1