RAMASAMY SELVAM v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

HCAL 2483/2024

[2025] HKCFI 4334

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST No. 2483 of 2024

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 present in open court;

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 27 November 2024 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. By an affirmation dated 28 June 2025, he applied to withdraw his application. By another affirmation dated 7 July 2025, he reneged and confirmed that he still wanted to proceed with his application. However, he was absent at the hearing on 18 August 2025. 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 came to Hong Kong as a visitor on 3 April 2024. On 11 June 2024, he surrendered to the Immigration Department and lodged a non-refoulement claim on the basis that, if refouled, he will be harmed or killed by his half-brother because of a land dispute.

5.   According to the applicant, his half-brother wanted to take over his piece of land, which he inherited from his grandfather. He sold the land to another person when his half-brother was overseas. When his half-brother returned to India and learned about it, he was angry and went to the applicant’s home where he assaulted his wife and children, respectively aged 8 and 11.

6.   Details of his claim are set out in the Board’s Decision. See hyperlink https://legalref.judiciary.hk/doc/judg/html/vetted/other/en/2024/HCAL002483_2024_files/the_Board's_Decision.pdf.

The Director’s Decision

7.  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”).

8.  By way of Notice of Decision dated 17 September 2024 (“the Director’s Decision”), the Director dismissed the applicant’s claim because it was unsubstantiated.

The Board’s Decision

9.  The applicant appealed the Director’s Decision to the Board. On 21 November 2024, the Board conducted an oral hearing for his appeal. He had given oral evidence and answered the Board’s questions.

10.  Having considered the evidence, the Board found that there were serious inconsistencies and implausibility in his evidence. The Board did not accept the facts in support of his claim. [30] The Board further found that state protection would be available to him and internal relocation viable. [29]

Application for leave to apply for judicial review of the Board’s Decision

11.  The applicant has filed Form 86 dated 16 December 2024 for leave to apply for judicial review of the Board’s Decision.

12.  In his affirmation in support of his application, the applicant did not raise any specific reason to challenge the Board’s Decision.

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 applicant fails to show that he has any realistic prospect of success in his proposed judicial review of the Board’s Decision.

DISPOSITION

17.  I refuse to grant leave to the applicant to apply for judicial review of the Board’s Decision. Accordingly, I dismiss his application.

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