CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST No. 1614 of 2021
|
BETWEEN
|
| |
Paramdeep Singh |
Applicant |
| |
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 17 November 2021 of the Torture Claims Appeal Board (“the Board’s Decision”), dismissing the appeal against the Director’s Decision as described below.
2. The applicant asked for a hearing. However, he did not appear before the Court at the hearing on 16 March 2026. I shall deal with his application on the papers.
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 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 paternal uncle and cousins due to a land dispute.
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/2021/HCAL001614_2021_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 9 April 2021 (“the Director’s Decision”), the Director dismissed the applicant’s claim on all applicable risks because it was unsubstantiated.
The Board’s Decision
8. The applicant appealed the Director’s Decision to the Board. On 19 August 2021, 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) There was no evidence that his enemies would intend to harm or kill him. In fact, he did not receive any physical harm. [37] & [58]
(2) The state was not involved in this case. [56]
(3) The risks as claimed are only local. [57]
(4) There was no evidence in support of BOR 2 risk. [63]
(5) State protection should be available to him if he returns to India. [64]
(6) Internal relocation is viable. [96]
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 26 November 2021 for leave to apply for judicial review of the Board’s Decision.
12. In support of his application, the applicant has raised the grounds below to challenge the Board’s Decision.
(1) The Board’s Decision is unreasonable and irrational as it had fettered its discretion.
(2) The Board failed to meet the greater care and duty for him.
(3) The Board had relied on source of news which is not officially recognized or it is simply hearsay and had relied on cases which are outdated.
(4) The Board has not considered all the materials submitted.
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 grounds under paragraph 12 are bare assertions without any evidence in support. The Court of Appeal had held that such grounds are not valid to challenge the Board’s Decision[1].
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 15th day of April 2026
| |
(Allen 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 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 15/4/2026
Paramdeep 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 15/4/2026
Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office
Putative Respondent’s ref. no.:
USM 17854/21/4/57/IN3240
Director of Immigration
Putative Interested Party’s ref. no.:
RBCL/985/20
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].”