|
HCAL 1288/2021
[2026] HKCFI 1324
IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST No. 1288 of 2021
|
BETWEEN
|
| |
Rajwinder 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 (Non-Refoulement Claims) Lewis Law:
1. The Applicant’s Form 86 be amended to name the Director of Immigration as a 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 13 September 2021 (“Form 86”), the Applicant sought leave for judicial review of the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-Refoulement Claims Petition Office (“the Board”) made on 27 August 2021 (“the Board’s Decision”). A copy of the Board’s Decision can be viewed by the following hyperlink[1].
2. The Board’s Decision was made pursuant to a petition/appeal from a decision of the Director of Immigration (“DI”) dated 25 May 2017. The Form 86 has identified the Board as a putative respondent but not the DI as a putative interested party. I amended the Form 86 on my own motion to name the DI as a putative interested party to this application.
3. The Applicant is an Indian national. He claimed to be a freelance singer when he was in India. He said another singer was jealous of his popularity and caused physical violence to be done to him. He alleged that the other singer was connected to the ruling party of Punjab province, where he lived.
4. After an oral hearing, in which the Applicant was legally represented by Duty Lawyer, the Board came to the finding that the Applicant was not subject to any real risk of being harmed, killed, tortured or violated his fundamental human rights; neither was he under any well-founded fear of being persecuted so that he had to stay outside India. In coming to the finding, the Board considered the Applicant’s evidence and found him not credible. Moreover, the Board found the alleged connection between the other singer and a political party irrelevant.
5. In his Form 86 and supporting affirmation in this leave application, the Applicant has set out a few grounds on which relief is sought. They are summarized as follows. First, the Board failed to meet “greater care and duty” owed to a self-represented claimant. Secondly, the Board failed to consider the risk of violation of the Applicant’s right to life under Article 2 of the Hong Kong Bill of Rights (“BOR2”). Thirdly, the Board had relied on country of origin information (“COI”) which was not officially recognised or simply hearsay, and some of which was fairly outdated.
6. As to the first ground, the Applicant did not particularise the duty owed by the Board to him and how it was breached. I am not able to find any indication that the Board had failed to perform its duty in an appropriate manner.
7. The Board did assess the Applicant’s right under BOR2, just the factual assertions were not accepted and thus there was no substantial ground to believe that the Applicant had a risk of his right to life violated. The second ground is obviously inapplicable.
8. As to the third ground, the Board found the Applicant’s claim incredible. Non‑refoulement protection was denied primarily on that basis. In such situation, whether and how COI was assessed assumed no significance. There is no substance in the third ground.
9. The Applicant also vaguely suggested the Board’s Decision to be irrational, the product of “unlawful fettering of discretion” and without regard of the “life and limb in jeopardy” principle etc. There was no elaboration as to how those grounds applied to the case and I find no substance in them. I do not intend to deal with each of those vague assertions.
10. 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 Board. In the absence of any errors of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality, the Court would not reopen the Board’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).
11. I have reviewed the Board’s Decision vigorously, but do not find the proposed judicial review reasonably arguable. The leave application is thus dismissed.
Dated the 10th day of March 2026
| |
(Teresa Ng)
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 10 March 2026
Rajwinder 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 10 March 2026
Torture Claims Appeal Board/ Non-Refoulement Claims Petition Office
Putative Respondent’s ref. no.:
USM 7389/17/6/85/IN1395
Director of Immigration
Putative Interested Party’s ref. no.:
QA T/C 217/17 (T2S9) (Formerly RBCZ 3000240/14)
Department of Justice,
Senior Assistant Law Officer
(Civil Law)
(Civil Litigation Unit 2) |
Form CALL-1
|