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

HCAL 400/2020

[2025] HKCFI 2016

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST No 400 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 is amended on the court’s own motion.

2.  The Leave Application be dismissed.

Observation for the Applicant:

Introduction

1.  By prescribed Form 86 filed on 13 March 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 24 January 2020 (“Board’s Decision”) dismissing the applicant's appeal against a decision of the Director of Immigration (“Director”) dated 28 May 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/HCAL000400_2020_files/the_Board's_Decision.pdf

2.  In his Form 86, the applicant named the “USM” as the proposed respondent and the “TCAB” as the proposed interested party. As the Board should have been the proper respondent and the Director the interested party, the Form 86 will be amended accordingly.

3.  The basis of the applicant’s claim is that he would be harmed or killed by his paternal uncle who refused to let the applicant farm in his father’s farmland.  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.  As the applicant had requested for a hearing of the Leave Application, this court held a hearing on 9 May 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 and supporting affirmation, the applicant did not raise any grounds for judicial review.

8.  At the hearing, the applicant initially said that he had nothing to say. After the court reminded him that he had not provided any grounds on paper, the applicant then said that he already submitted all documents before the Board in support of his appeal.

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 rejected the claim primarily because the applicant suffered relatively minor injuries on one occasion only, and his uncle never harmed his parents and brother or forced his father to transfer the land. The Board thus found that there was no real risk of harm.  The Board also found that state protection would be available and 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.

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 in the Decisions of the Director and the Board.  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].

Order

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

12.  The Leave Application 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