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

HCAL 861/2020

[2025] HKCFI 3200

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST No. 861 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 Applicant’s Form 86 be amended to name the TCAB as the only putative respondent and the DI as the putative interested party; and

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

Observations for the Applicant:

1.  By a Form 86 filed on 11 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 April 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 12 December 2018. The Applicant named both the TCAB and the DI as putative respondents in the Form 86, which was incorrect as the DI’s tier-one decision has already been superseded by the TCAB Decision. I amended the Form 86 on my own motion to name the TCAB as the only putative respondent and the DI as the putative interested party to this application.

3.  The Applicant has failed to identify any alleged errors of law, irrationality or procedural unfairness on the part of the TCAB in reaching the TCAB Decision to make good his challenge, either in the Form 86 or the supporting affirmation. In the oral hearing before me, he said he has nothing to add in support of the leave application.

4.  The Applicant claimed that he fell in love with a girl in an influential family, which was said to have strong Government connection, and that was the reason he was subject to past threat and future risk of ill-treatment should he return to India (his home country). The TCAB conducted a hearing for the Applicant to make representation. After hearing, the TCAB found that there was no substantial ground to believe that the Applicant would be subject to risks of torture, violation of his rights under the Hong Kong Bill of Rights and persecution. The TCAB also found that the Applicant had a viable internal relocation alternative if he was really subject to any risk in his local district.

5.  I have reviewed the TCAB Decision vigorously. In my judgment, the TCAB Decision was supported by factual findings and the TCAB had conducted an anxious scrutiny of the available evidence and information. 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 the TCAB. In the absence of any errors of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality, the Court would not reopen the 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).

6.  The leave application to apply for judicial review is thus 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