|
HCAL 229/2026
[2026] HKCFI 2908
IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST NO 229 OF 2026
|
BETWEEN
|
| |
Ramavant Ravi Mohandas |
Applicant |
| |
and |
|
| |
Torture Claims Appeal Board |
Putative |
| |
|
Respondent |
| |
and |
|
| |
Director of Immigration |
Putative |
| |
|
Interested Party |
Application for leave to apply for judicial review
NOTIFICATION of the Judge’s decision (Order 53, rule 3)
Following:
Order by Deputy High Court Judge Michael WONG:
1. On this court’s own motion, the name of the putative interested party be amended to “Director of Immigration”.
2. The applicant’s application for leave to apply for judicial review be dismissed.
Observations for the applicant:
The Leave Application
1. By way of Form 86 dated 6 January 2026 and filed on 21 January 2026, the applicant applied for leave to apply for judicial review (“the Leave Application”) in respect of the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board (“the Board”) dated 23 December 2025 (“the Board’s Decision”). The Board’s Decision can be viewed in the following hyperlink:-
https://legalref.judiciary.hk/doc/judg/html/vetted/other/en/2026/HCAL000229_2026_files/the_Board's_ Decision.pdf
2. The Board found that the applicant’s claim for non-refoulement protection failed on all the applicable grounds under the Unified Screening Mechanism (“the USM”). Hence, the Board affirmed the decision of the Director of Immigration (“the Director”) dated 12 November 2025, which rejected the applicant’s non-refoulement claim.
Amendment
3. In Form 86, the applicant named the Board as both the putative respondent and the putative interested party.
4. In fact, the Board should only be named as the putative respondent, and the Director should be named as the putative interested party.
5. Thus, this court makes an order on its own motion to amend the name of the putative interested party to “Director of Immigration”.
The applicant’s case
6. It is not necessary for this court to repeat the details of the applicant’s case here as the same were set out in the Board’s Decision, which can be viewed in the hyperlink above.
7. In sum, the applicant claimed for non-refoulement protection because if refouled to India, he would be harmed or killed by his uncle Mangal and Mangal’s two sons Ganpat and Laxman (collectively “the Enemies”) due to a land dispute. The applicant claimed that the Enemies tried to grab the land that he inherited from his late father. The Enemies threatened that if the applicant declined, they would restrict people to attend the wedding of the applicant’s brother scheduled to be held in December 2025. They also threatened to kill the applicant.
Disposal on paper
8. The applicant did not request for an oral hearing of the Leave Application. This court is also satisfied that the Leave Application can be disposed of based on the written materials before this court. Hence, the Leave Application is dealt with on paper.
Grounds for judicial review
9. The applicant is required to identify clearly the grounds for the intended judicial review (see Ho Loy & Another v Director of Environmental Protection, HCAL 21 of 2015, dated 22.12.2016).
10. The applicant did not advance any ground for his intended judicial review in Form 86, nor in his supporting affirmation dated 21 January 2026. In his affirmation, the applicant merely stated that he did not want to go back to his country because his problem was very serious, his enemy was very dangerous both politically and financially and he could not fight against them.
Discussion
11. First of all, the applicant’s alleged danger from his enemies in his country had been duly assessed but rejected by the Board. If the applicant intends to challenge the Board’s finding of facts, it is not permissible in an application for judicial review.
12. The role of the court in judicial review is not to re-assess the non-refoulement claims afresh. The primary decision-makers in a claim for non-refoulement are the Director and the Board. They alone assess the evidence and find facts including those relating to the matters allegedly giving rise to the non-refoulement claim, risk of harm, availability of state protection and viability of internal relocation. The court will scrutinize the Board’s decision and intervene by way of judicial review only for errors of law, procedural unfairness, or irrationality (see Nupur Mst v Director of Immigration [2018] HKCA 524).
13. Thus, despite the fact that the applicant did not advance any valid ground for the intended judicial review, this court will scrutinize the Board’s Decision for any errors of law, procedural unfairness, or irrationality as aforesaid.
14. In assessing the applicant’s appeal/petition, the Board held an oral hearing on 19 December 2025. The applicant was present and was thus given the opportunity to present his case to the Board in person.
15. The Board had laid out its analysis and findings on the credibility of the applicant’s claim in paragraphs 40 to 54 of the Board’s Decision, and it is not necessary to repeat them here.
16. In gist, the Board found that there were significant discrepancies and contradictions in the material components of the applicant’s story amongst his evidence previously given and what he said at the hearing before the Board. The applicant’s evidence was very much unreliable and he could not convince the Board on the balance of probabilities that there had been attack(s) or threat(s) made to him and/or that he would be killed or harmed if refouled to India.
17. Even on the applicant’s accounts, the Enemies were non-state actors and the dispute between the applicant and the Enemies was only a family land dispute. The alleged injuries were not serious. The applicant never made a report to the police. There was no evidence of state acquiescence and the applicant’s fear of his Enemies was not for a Convention reason.
18. Moreover, the Board found from country of origin information (“COI”) that despite the existence of corruption in the Indian police, there had been ongoing efforts made by the Indian government to deal with the corruption or nepotism problem. There was no reliable evidence to show that the Indian authorities were unwilling or unable to afford protection to the applicant.
19. As to internal relocation, the Board had laid out in paragraphs 65 to 70 of the Board’s Decision its full reasons in determining that it would not be unduly harsh for the applicant to relocate to any place or location in India to avoid any perceived harm.
20. Thus, the Board concluded that the applicant’s claim for non-refoulement protection failed on all the applicable grounds under the USM.
21. The finding of facts relating to a non-refoulement claim, including the assessment of evidence, COI and risk of harm, was solely within the ambit of the Board in dealing with the applicant’s appeal/petition. This court finds nothing wrong or unreasonable in the way the Board reached its decision.
22. Having rigorously examined the Board’s Decision and the evidence with anxious scrutiny, this court is satisfied that the Board had correctly set out the law and key legal principles relating to the applicable grounds under the USM, the burden of proof and the standard of proof. The Board also correctly identified the issues and observed a very high standard of fairness. This court could detect no errors of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the Board’s Decision. The Board’s Decision does satisfy the enhanced Wednesbury test, ie it is not Wednesbury unreasonable or irrational for the Board to reach its decision.
23. As held by the Court of Final Appeal in Po Fun Chan v Winnie Cheung (2007) 10 HKCFAR 676, for the court to grant leave to apply for judicial review, the claim has to be a reasonably arguable claim which enjoys realistic prospects of success. It is the view of this court that the applicant has failed to establish such a claim and hence leave must be refused.
Conclusion
24. For reasons aforesaid, the Leave Application is dismissed.
Dated the 20th day of May 2026
| |
( Gladys LEE )
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 his 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/Handed to the applicant/the applicant’s solicitors
on: 20/05/2026
Applicant’s ref. no:
Nil |
|
Sent/Handed 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: 20/05/2026
Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office
Putative respondent’s ref. no.:
USM 27598
Director of Immigration
Putative interested party’s ref. no.:
QA T/C 2019/25 (Formerly RBCZ 5001858/25)
Department of Justice,
Senior Assistant Law Officer
(Civil Law)
(Civil Litigation Unit 2) |
Form CALL-1
|