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

HCAL 3858/2019

[2025] HKCFI 1625

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST No. 3858 of 2019

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;

The application for leave to apply for judicial review be dismissed.

Observations for the Applicant:

Introduction

1.  By a Form 86 filed on 24 December 2019 (the “Form 86”), the Applicant applied for leave to apply for judicial review of “the decision given by appeal board on 05‑12‑2019”. He named the Torture Claims Appeal Board (the “TCAB”) as the proposed respondent as well as an interested party.

2.  From the papers filed for this application, there was a decision dated 5 December 2019 by the TCAB (the “TCAB Decision”) that affirmed the decision by the Director of Immigration (the “DOI”) dated 16 October 2018 refusing the Applicant’s non‑refoulement protection claim.

3.  I amended the Form 86 on my own motion to name only the TCAB as the putative respondent and only the DOI as a putative interested party.

4.  The Applicant requested for a hearing of this application and he attended the same. When asked if he had anything to add he confirmed that he had not.

Background

5.  The Applicant is a national of India. He seeks non-refoulement protection on the basis that he will be harmed or killed by his girlfriend’s family if he is returned as they do not approve of the relationship on religious grounds. His personal background, the relevant facts and relevant procedural history have been sufficiently set out in the TCAB Decision, which can be assessed through a hyperlink[1], and I shall not repeat the same herein.

Discussion

6.  In a judicial review, this court does not provide a further avenue of appeal. Though in non-refoulement case an enhanced standard in scrutinizing the decision of the TCAB is required given the seriousness of the issue at hand, this court should not usurp the role of the TCAB, which together with the DOI are the primary decision‑makers. This court will not intervene by way of judicial review unless there are errors of law or procedural unfairness or irrationality in the decision of the TCAB (Nupur Mst v Director of Immigration [2018] HKCA 524, [14(1)]). There must be a reasonably arguable claim with a realistic prospect of success before leave for judicial review will be granted (Peter Po Fun Chan v Winnie Cheung & Anr (2007) 10 HKCFAR 676).

7.  In his affirmation filed in support of the Form 86, the Applicant only reiterated the alleged risk and his disagreement with the TCAB’s conclusions on statement protection and internal relocation. He did not point to any error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality of the TCAB Decision.

8.  Looking at the TCAB Decision, the TCAB identified the correct legal principles to apply in respect of each of the four applicable grounds under the USM [7-16]; all the available evidence was placed before the TCAB [17, 20-30]; and after careful analysis of the evidence and application of those principles, the TCAB came to the conclusion that none of the four grounds was made out [32-51].

9.  Further, the TCAB also concluded that internal relocation was also available to the Applicant as well [52-59].

10.  All in all, I have not detected any errors of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the TCAB Decision, despite rigorous examination and anxious scrutiny.

Conclusion

11.  For the above reasons, I am not satisfied that this court should intervene by way of judicial review. I therefore dismiss the application.

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