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

HCAL 770/2020

[2025] HKCFI 2913

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST No. 770 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 the Applicant being absent in open court;

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

Observations for the Applicant:

1.  By a Form 86 filed on 27 April 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 17 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 28 March 2018.

3.  In his Form 86 and supporting affirmation, the Applicant did not point to any errors of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality of the TCAB Decision.  In the oral hearing, the Applicant even said he planned to leave Hong Kong in 6 months’ time and would accept whatever is decided. 

4.  According to the TCAB Decision, TCAB conducted an oral hearing for the Applicant’s appeal/petition.  After assessing all the evidence, the TCAB said it was not satisfied the Applicant was an active supporter of the Congress Party.  It followed the TCAB did not accept that the Applicant was involved in a political meeting which was violently disrupted and he was injured in the process as claimed.  In those circumstances, the TCAB was satisfied that the Applicant did not face a real chance of harm at the time of its assessment and would not face it in the reasonably foreseeable future in India from his claimed source of fear or any other persons.  

5.  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 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.  I have reviewed the TCAB Decision vigorously, but do not find the proposed judicial review reasonably arguable.  The leave application 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