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

HCAL 1850/2025

[2025] HKCFI 4784

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST No. 1850 of 2025

Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review
NOTIFICATION of the Judge’s decision (Ord. 53 r. 3)

Following;

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 July 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. He attempted to enter Hong Kong on 17 March 2025, but the Immigration Department refused to permit him to enter. He lodged non-refoulement claim on the basis that, upon refouled, he will be harmed or killed by members of the Aam Aadmi Party (“AAP”) because he was affiliated with the Bharatiya Janata Party (“BJP”) and refused to join the AAP. The AAP members had threatened and attacked him. He had reported to police, but police did not render assistance to him.

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/HCAL001850_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 6 May 2025 (“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 3 July 2025, the Board conducted an oral hearing for his appeal. The applicant had given oral evidence and answered the Board’s questions.

9.  Having considered the evidence, the Board found the facts below.

(1)  The Board accepted that the applicant was afraid of returning to India because of the past threats of harm or death against him from the AAP peoples. [42]

(2)  However, there was no evidence to show (i) that he came under any threat as a personal target of AAP; (ii) that he faces risk throughout India; (iii) that he was seriously injured in the past; (iv) that India government would be unwilling to help him. [43]

(3)  State protection appears to be available to him. [63]

(4)  If he wants to relocate, New Delhi or Chennai will be suitable cities for him. [90]

10.  For the reasons above, the Board dismissed his appeal and confirmed 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 19 August 2025 for leave to apply for judicial review of the Board’s Decision.

12.  In his affirmation in support of his application, the applicant said that the Board did not understand his situation in his country and invited the Board to go to his country to see for itself.

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.  His reason under paragraph 12 is not valid to challenge the Board’s Decision. The Board can rely on the country of origin information instead of going to India itself. The Board had referred to the country of origin information before making its decisions.

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.

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