|
HCAL 1195/2025
[2025] HKCFI 5884
IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST No. 1195 of 2025
|
BETWEEN
|
| |
Lakhwinder Singh |
Applicant |
| |
alias Lakhwinder Singh Kulwant Singh |
|
| |
and |
|
| |
Torture Claims Appeal Board/ |
Putative |
| |
Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office |
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 K.W. Lung:
Leave to apply for Judicial Review be refused.
Observations for the Applicant:
THE APPLICATION
1. The applicant applies for leave to apply for judicial review of the Decision dated 14 May 2025 of the Torture Claims Appeal Board (“the Board’s Decision”), dismissing the appeal against the Director’s Decision as described below.
2. The applicant did not ask for a hearing.
3. Pursuant to Order 20, rule 8 and Order 53, rule 3(6) of the Rules of the High Court, Form 86 is amended to the effect that the proposed respondent is the Board and the Director of Immigration is the interested party.
The applicant
4. The applicant is a national of India. He is an illegal immigrant, having entered Hong Kong illegally from China on 1 July 2024. He was arrested. He lodged a non‑refoulement claim with the Director of Immigration (“the Director”) on the basis that, if refouled, he will be harmed or killed by his uncle due to a land dispute. He was attacked by his uncle with weapon and sustained injuries.
5. Details of his claim are set out in the Board’s Decision. See hyperlink https://legalref.judiciary.hk/doc/judg/html/vetted/other/en/2025/HCAL001195_2025_files/the_Board's_Decision.pdf.
The Director’s Decision
6. The Director considered the applicant’s claim in relation to the following risks:
a. risk of torture under Part VIIC of the Immigration Ordinance, Cap. 115, (“the Ordinance”) (“Torture risk”);
b. risk of violation of the right to life under Article 2 of Section 8 of the Hong Kong Bill of Rights Ordinance, Cap. 383 (“HKBOR”) (“BOR 2 risk”);
c. risk of torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment (“CIDTP”) under Article 3 of Section 8 of the HKBOR (“BOR 3 risk”); and
d. risk of persecution by reference to the non-refoulement principle under Article 33 of the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees and its 1967 Protocol (“Refugee Convention”) (“Persecution risk”).
7. By way of Notice of Decision dated 23 January 2015 (“the Director’s Decision”), the Director dismissed the applicant’s claim because it was unsubstantiated.
The Board’s Decision
8. The applicant appealed the Director’s Decision to the Board. On 2 April 2025, the Board conducted an oral hearing for his appeal. He had given oral evidence and answered the Board’s questions.
9. Having considered the evidence, the Board made the findings below.
(1) It did not accept his claim [46], with reasons [47]-[49].
(2) It accepted that there was a land dispute between him and his uncle. The Board did not accept that he was attacked or harmed by his uncle and he will be safe to return to India. [50]
(3) He may also relocate in India. [50]
(4) It did not accept that he will be attacked if he returns to India. [51]
10. For the reasons above, the Board dismissed his appeal and affirmed the Director’s Decision.
Application for leave to apply for judicial review of the Board’s Decision
11. The applicant has filed Form 86 dated 22 May 2025 for leave to apply for judicial review of the Board’s Decision.
12. In his affirmation in support of his application, the applicant has raised the grounds below.
(1) In determining whether there is realistic prospect of success, the Board had raised the threshold too high.
(2) The country of origin information have factors in favour of and against his case. The Board had adopted those factors against him and the basis of rejecting factors in his favour lacks completeness and evidence.
(3) The adjudicator did not consider the evidence before rejecting his case.
(4) The adjudicator did not consider his circumstances, his political grounds, the existence of consistent pattern of gross, flagrant or mass violation of human rights.
(5) He did not have legal assistance on his legal rights and translation service.
DISCUSSION
13. The role of this Court is supervisory, meaning that it ensures that the Board complied with the public law requirements in coming to the Board’s Decision on the applicant’s appeal. The Court will not usurp the fact-finding power vested in the Director and the Board. See TK v Michael C Jenkins Esq and Director of Immigration [2013] 1 HKC 526, §40 and Nupur Mst v Director of Immigration [2018] HKCA 524, §14 (1).
14. The Court will bear in mind that the Board’s Decision should be examined with rigorous examination and anxious scrutiny.
15. In Re: Kartini [2019] HKCA 1022, 9 September 2019, the Court of Appeal held:
“13. (1) … …Assessment of evidence and COI materials and risk of harm, state protection and viability of internal relocation are primarily within the province of the Board (and the Director). The 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 Board.”
16. The applicant’s grounds under paragraph 12 do not assist his application. Ground (1) to ground (3) are his bare assertions without any evidence in support. Ground (4) is not relevant to his grounds in support of his claim. They are not valid to challenge the Board’s Decision[1]. As to his complaints about lack of legal assistance and translation service, the Court of Appeal had held that these are not valid grounds to challenge the Board’s Decision[2] [3].
17. The applicant fails to show that he has any realistic prospect of success in his proposed judicial review of the Board’s Decision.
DISPOSITION
18. I refuse to grant leave to the applicant to apply for judicial review of the Board’s Decision. Accordingly, I dismiss his application.
Dated the 9th day of December 2025
| |
(M.O. WONG)(Ms)
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 9/12/2025
Lakhwinder Singh alias Lakhwinder Singh Kulwant 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 9/12/2025
Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office
Putative Respondent’s ref. no.:
USM 25547
Director of Immigration
Putative Interested Party’s ref. no.:
INCL-0001676-24 (C)(CZ)
Department of Justice,
Senior Assistant Law Officer
(Civil Law)
(Civil Litigation Unit 2) |
Form CALL-1
[1] The Court of Appeal in Salim Ahmed alias MD Salim [2020] HKCA 244 held:
“20. … … general assertions or propositions of law cannot assist an appellant when he fails to condescend to the requisite particulars related to the facts of his case: Re Mizan Sikder [2019] HKCA 20 and Ibrahim v Simon Russell [2019] HKCA 1327.” See also Re Haider Khalil [2021] HKCA 223 [16].”
[2] The Court of Appeal in Re Ahmed Syed Rafiq [2018] HKCA 178, Hon Lam & Chu JA, 26 March 2018, held:
“22. This Court has repeatedly held that neither the high standard of fairness laid down in Secretary for Security v Sakthevel Prabakar (2004) 7 HKCFAR 187 nor the judgment of FB v Director of Immigration HCAL 51 of 2007 prescribed that a CAT claimant or a claimant for BOR 2 or BOR 3 or persecution risks must have an absolute right to free legal representation at all stages of the proceedings: Re Zunariyah [2018] HKCA 14, Re Zahid Abbas [2018] HKCA 15, Re Tariq Farhan [2018] HKCA 17, and Re Lopchan Subash [2018] HKCA 37. The applicant already had the benefit of legal representation in presenting his case to the Director of Immigration. We do not find anything amiss arising from lack of legal representation in the process before the Board.”
[3] The Court of Appeal in Re Khan MD Omar [2019] HKCA 803, 19 July 2019 held:
“I8. … …Interpreter services were provided at hearings at every stage. Such services were also available at the time when the applicant was assisted by Duty Lawyer. We do not accept that the alleged lack of language assistance at other time would render the process unfair in the present case.”
|