VAIYAPURI LOGAMANI v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

HCAL 1732/2020

[2025] HKCFI 4468

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST No. 1732 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 the Applicant being absent in open court;

1.  The Applicant’s Form 86 be amended to name the TCAB as the putative respondent, the DOI instead as a putative interested party and the TCAB decision dated 19 June 2020 as the decision sought to be reviewed; and

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

Observations for the Applicant:

Introduction

1.  By a Form 86 filed on 27 August 2020 (the “Form 86”), the Applicant applied for leave to apply for judicial review. He did not specify what decision he wanted to review and stated “17/08/2020 apply for Director of Immigration” in the proposed respondent section. He did not name any interested party either.

2.  From the case record, there had been 2 decisions by the Director of Immigration (the “DOI”), one dated 31 December 2014, which refused the Applicant’s non-refoulement protection claim on the basis of three of the four applicable grounds under the USM, and the other dated 31 March 2017, which refused the same application on the basis of BOR2 risks. The Applicant had appealed against both decisions, and both were affirmed by the Torture Claims Appeal Board (the “TCAB”): by its decisions dated 28 December 2016 and 19 June 2020 (the “TCAB Decision”) respectively.

3.  I take it that the Applicant is seeking judicial review of the TCAB Decision, as time to apply for judicial review of the earlier TCAB decision had long lapsed and there is no applicable to extend the time to do so.

4.  I amended the Form 86 on my own motion accordingly, naming the TCAB as the putative respondent and the DOI as a putative interested party.

5.  The Applicant did not request for a hearing and this application is to be dealt with on paper.

Background

6.  The Applicant is a national of India. He seeks non-refoulement protection on the basis that, if he was returned, he would be harmed by family members of his girlfriend who forbade her to marry him and also fabricated a false criminal charge against him. 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.

7.  In his affirmation filed in support of this applicant, apart from stating that it was still unsafe for him to return, the Applicant did not point to any particular error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the TCAB Decision.

8.  Looking at the TCAB Decision, on the basis that the Applicant did not supply further material upon invitation by the DOI for assessment on the basis of BOR2 risks [3] and applying the correct principles the TCAB decided that an oral hearing was not necessary [17-18].

9.  The TCAB took into consideration all materials placed before it [4-15], bore in mind the correct principle in respect of BOR2 risks assessment [19-22], and came to the finding and conclusion that the Applicant’s allegations and his claim on BOR2 ground were not made out [23-24].

10.  I do not see any error 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