DHALIWAL GURSANGAT SINGH v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

HCAL 2197/2020

[2025] HKCFI 4720

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST No 2197 of 2020

Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review
NOTIFICATION of the Judge’s decision (Ord 53 r 3)

Following:

The applicant’s application for leave to apply for judicial review be dismissed.

Observations for the Applicant:

Introduction

1.  By a “Notice of application to apply for leave for judicial review” in the prescribed Form 86 filed on 2 November 2020, the applicant applied for leave to apply for judicial review (“Leave Application”). The intended judicial review was against the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board / the Non-Refoulement Claims Petition Office (“Board”) dated 28 October 2020 (“Board’s Decision”) dismissing the applicant's appeal against a decision of the Director of Immigration (“Director”) dated 12 April 2018 (“Director’s Decision”) rejecting the applicant's non-refoulement claim on all applicable grounds. The Board’s Decision can be viewed at the following hyperlink: -

https://legalref.judiciary.hk/doc/judg/html/vetted/other/en/2020/HCAL002197_2020_files/the_Board's_Decision.pdf

2.  The basis of the applicant’s claim was that, if refouled, he would be harmed or killed by his family and his former girlfriend’s family. The Board’s reasoning and findings were set out in detail in the Board’s Decision and it is not necessary for me to repeat them. Unless otherwise specified, I shall also adopt the Board’s abbreviations and descriptions stated in the Board’s Decision.

3.  At the applicant’s request for a hearing of the Leave Application, this court scheduled a hearing on 18 September 2025. The applicant attended the hearing in person. After having heard from him, this court informed him that the decision would be reserved, and be sent to his updated address.

Discussion

4.  The Leave Application operates as a ‘filtering’ process and there is no requirement or expectation to give elaborate reasons for my decision.[1] It is sufficient to state my observations after considering the Board’s Decision and the applicant’s materials adduced.

5.  In a proper Form 86, an applicant is required to identify the grounds of judicial review clearly and succinctly[2], and further to make full and frank disclosure of all material facts to be verified by an affidavit. The applicant’s Form 86 provided no such grounds at all. In the supporting affirmation, the applicant only stated that his girlfriend’s family wanted to kill him; that the authorities in his country would not protect him; and that relocation was not possible.

6.  At the hearing, this court asked the applicant whether he had any grounds he wished to submit in support of the Leave Application. The applicant stated that he had nothing to say.

7.  As the Courts have repeatedly stated, a finding of fact is exclusively within the realm of the Board, which a court in a judicial review will not interfere with unless such finding involved an error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality.[3] In the present case, whilst the Board found that the applicant’s account was credible, it however found that he was unable to establish the existence of any real risk of harm if refouled through the passage of time. It found that the circumstances that triggered the threats that arose from the possibility of conversion to Christianity and the relationship with the girlfriend had already dissipated. The Board further found that state protection would be reasonably available. These are findings of fact, which the court in a judicial review will not interfere with, subject to there being any public law errors.

8.  Bearing in mind the enhanced standard that should be adopted in scrutinizing the Board’s Decision, this court is satisfied that the Board correctly applied the law relating to all the grounds and observed a high standard of fairness. I am satisfied that the Board was entitled to conclude that there was no risk of harm after having found that the threats had already disappeared. The applicant has not provided any grounds, whether written or oral, to support the Leave Application. The applicant has not shown any errors of law or procedural unfairness or irrationality in the Board’s Decision. The applicant’s intended challenge to the Board’s Decision is not reasonably arguable with realistic prospects of success such that would enable this court to grant leave[4].

Order

9.  The applicant’s application for leave to apply for judicial review be 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