Case Details

Citation

GAJAGIRI GANGADHAR v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE, HCAL 651/2026

Case Number

HCAL 651/2026

Court

Court of First Instance

(CFI)

Decision Date

5 August 2026

Parties

Applicant(s):

Gajagiri Gangadhar

Respondent(s):

Torture Claims Appeal Board/ Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office, Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office

Judges

K.W. Lung

GAJAGIRI GANGADHAR v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

[2026] HKCFI 4100 · HCAL 651/2026

Court of First Instance5 August 2026

Judges:K.W. Lung

HCAL651/2026 GAJAGIRI GANGADHAR v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

HCAL 651/2026

[2026] HKCFI 4100

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST No. 651 of 2026

BETWEEN
	Gajagiri Gangadhar	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;

consideration of documents only: or

consideration of documents and Applicant being absent in open court;

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 10 March 2026 of the Torture Claims Appeal Board (“the Board’s Decision”), dismissing the appeal against the Director’s Decision as described below.

2. The applicant did not ask for a hearing.

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 a man by the name of Prashant, who is a politically connected land dealer because he refused to return a piece of land he had purchased from Prashant.

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/2026/HCAL000651_2026_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 21 January 2026 (“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 5 March 2026, 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 found there was no evidence that demonstrated a real risk of proscribed harm from Prashant if he returns to India [63]; state protection will be available to him [66]; and internal relocation options are available to him [70].

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 30 March 2026 for leave to apply for judicial review of the Board’s Decision.

12. In his affirmation, the applicant stated that he was not satisfied with the Board’s Decision and his enemy is very strong financially and politically.

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 reasons under paragraph 12 are not valid to challenge the Board’s Decision.

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 5^th day of August 2026

(Klein Tse)
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 5/8/2026 Gajagiri Gangadhar 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 5/8/2026 Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office Putative Respondent’s ref. no.: USM 28020 Director of Immigration Putative Interested Party’s ref. no.: INCL-3151-25 Department of Justice, Senior Assistant Law Officer (Civil Law) (Civil Litigation Unit 2)

GAJAGIRI GANGADHAR v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

Court

Procedural posture

Issues

Holdings

Legal principles

Disposition

Key citations