|
HCAL 839/2020
[2025] HKCFI 2983
IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST No. 839 of 2020
| BETWEEN |
|
|
|
Dhaliwal Paramjit 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 (Non-Refoulement Claims) Lewis Law:
The application for leave to apply for judicial review be dismissed.
Observations for the Applicant:
1. By a Form 86 filed on 8 May 2020 (“Form 86”), the Applicant sought leave for judicial review of the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-Refoulement Claims Petition Office (“TCAB”) made on 20 March 2020 (“the TCAB Decision”). A copy of the TCAB Decision can be viewed by the following hyperlink[1].
2. The TCAB Decision was made pursuant to a petition/appeal from a decision of the Director of Immigration (“DI”) dated 11 January 2019. The Form 86 has identified the TCAB as a putative respondent and the DI as a putative interested party.
3. The Applicant was absent from the oral hearing of this leave application. On the authority of Re Abdus Salam [2019] HKCA 1091, I proceed to deal with the leave application based on the materials placed before me.
4. The basis of the Applicant’s non-refoulement claim was that he was in love with a girl but her family did not agree for their marriage. It was said the disagreement arose from their respective families’ different classes and support for different political parties. It was further said the girl’s brother wanted to kill him.
5. After an oral hearing, the TCAB came to the finding that the Applicant was not subject to any real risk of being harmed or killed, and he was not under any well-founded fear of being persecuted. In terms of torture risk, there was no suggestion that the Applicant’s claim involved any State actors or non-State actors under the concept of State consent/acquiescence.
6. In his Form 86 and supporting affirmation, the Applicant did not point to any errors of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality of the TCAB Decision. It has been reiterated time and again that the primary responsibility for the factual assessment of whether any risk of ill-treatment exists lies with TCAB. In the absence of any errors of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality, the Court would not reopen TCAB’s findings or make a determination on the case afresh. The role of the Court in a judicial review is not to provide a further avenue of appeal (see Re Lakhwinder Singh [2018] HKCA 246).
7. I have reviewed the TCAB Decision vigorously, but do not find the proposed judicial review reasonably arguable. The leave application is thus dismissed.
Dated the 17thday of July 2025
|
(Cheung Ho Yat, Annson)
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 17 July 2025
Dhaliwal Paramjit 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 17 July 2025
Torture Claims Appeal Board/ Non-Refoulement Claims Petition Office
Putative Respondent’s ref. no.:
USM 15420/19/1/293/IN3049
Director of Immigration
Putative Interested Party’s ref. no.:
QA T/C 4993/18 (formerly RBCZ 10530/18) (T9I65)
Department of Justice,
Senior Assistant Law Officer
(Civil Law)
(Civil Litigation Unit 2)
|
Form CALL-1
|