JAGTAR SINGH v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD

HCAL 1330/2022

[2026] HKCFI 986

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST NO 1330 OF 2022

Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review

NOTIFICATION of the Judge’s decision (Ord 53 r 3)

Following:

	consideration of the documents only;            or
	consideration of the documents and oral submissions by the Applicant in open court / the Applicant being absent in open court;

The application for leave to apply for judicial review be dismissed.

Observations for the Applicant:

1.  The Applicant is a 30-year-old national of India who entered Hong Kong illegally on 8 August 2019 and more than one year later on 17 August 2020 he surrendered to the Immigration Department and raised a non‑refoulement claim for protection on the basis that if he returned to India he would be harmed or killed by his family who disapproved of his relationship with his girlfriend due to their different religion. He was subsequently released on recognizance pending the determination of his claim.

2.  The Applicant was born and raised as a Sikh in Jalandhar, Punjab, India. After leaving school he worked as an electrician to make his living in his home district.

3.  In 2018 he met a girl on the social media from Indonesia who was a Muslim, but when his parents found out about it, they objected to their relationship due to their different religion, and in early 2019 when her parents learnt of the Applicant’s intention to marry his girlfriend, they locked him up and confiscated his mobile phone and computer to stop him from any further contact with his girlfriend, while his father and his uncle who was a local policeman also threatened to kill him if he did not put an end to the relationship.

4.  One night in July 2019 the Applicant managed to make his escape and fled from his home for Phagwada to hide in a friend’s place before moving on to Delhi where he departed India on 26 July 2019 for China, and from there he later sneaked into Hong Kong and subsequently raised his non-refoulement claim for protection, for which he completed a Non-refoulement Claim Form (“NCF”) on 24 February 2021 and attended screening interview before the Immigration Department with legal representation.

5.  By a Notice of Decision dated 13 May 2021 the Director of Immigration (“Director”) rejected the Applicant’s claim on all the applicable grounds including risk of torture under Part VIIC of the Immigration Ordinance, Cap 115 (“Torture Risk”), risk of his absolute or non-derogable rights under the Hong Kong Bill of Rights Ordinance, Cap 383 (“HKBOR”) being violated including right to life under Article 2 (“BOR 2 Risk”), risk of torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment under Article 3 of HKBOR (“BOR 3 Risk”), and risk of persecution with reference to the non-refoulement principle under Article 33 of the 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees (“Persecution Risk”).

6.  In his decision the Director took into account of all the relevant circumstances of the Applicant’s claim and found no substantial grounds for believing that there will be any real and substantial risk of him being harmed or killed by his family members upon his return to India due to the low intensity and frequency of past ill-treatment from them, that there is no evidence of any real intention of his family members to seriously harm or kill him other than angry words and empty threats, that in any event it was a private personal dispute within his family only without any official involvement that state or police protection would be available to the Applicant if resorted to, and that reliable and objective Country of Origin Information (“COI”) show that reasonable internal relocation alternatives are available in India with a large population of 1.3 billion people spread across a vast territory of more than 3.2 million square kilometers that it would not be unduly harsh for the Applicant as an able-bodied young adult with working experience to move to other areas of the country away from his home district in large cities such as Delhi or Mumbai where it would be difficult if not impossible for any members of his family to locate him.

7.  On 26 May 2021 the Applicant lodged an appeal to the Torture Claims Appeal Board (“Board”) against the Director’s decision, and for which he attended an oral hearing on 17 November 2021 before the Board during which he gave evidence and answered questions raised of his claim by the Adjudicator for the Board. On 14 November 2022 his appeal was dismissed by the Board which also confirmed the Director’s decision.

8.  In its decision[1] the Board accepted the Applicant’s claim of dispute with his family over their disapproval of his girlfriend due to religious reason but found no reliable evidence of any real intention of his parents or uncle to seriously harm or kill him other than angry words and empty threats, and that in any event it was a private dispute between him and his family only without any official involvement outside his home district that state or police protection would be available to the Applicant upon his return to India as well as reasonable internal relocation alternatives for him to move safely to other parts of the country away from his home district without any risk of being located by anyone that his claim for non-refoulement protection failed on all applicable grounds.

9.  On 25 November 2022 the Applicant filed his Form 86 for leave to apply for judicial review of the Board’s decision, but no ground for seeking relief was given in his Form or his supporting affirmation of the same date in which he just stated that he does not agree with the decision but without putting forth any proper ground for his intended challenge. As such, and in the absence of any error of law or irrationality or procedural unfairness in his process before the Board or in its decision being clearly and properly identified by the Applicant, I do not find any reasonably arguable basis for his intended challenge of the Board’s decision.

10.  As has been repeatedly emphasized by the Court of Appeal, judicial review does not operate as a rehearing of a non-refoulement claim when the proper occasion for the Applicant to present and articulate his claim is in the screening process and interview before the Immigration Department and in the process before the Board where the evaluation of the risk of harm is primarily a matter for the Director and the Board as they are entitled to make such evaluation based on the evidence available to them that the court will not usurp their role as primary decision makers in the absence of any legal error or procedural unfairness or irrationality in their decisions being clearly and properly identified by the Applicant, as judicial review is not an avenue for revisiting the assessment by them in the hope that the court may consider the matter afresh: Re Lakhwinder Singh [2018] HKCA 246; Re Daljit Singh [2018] HKCA 328; Re Mudannayakalage Chaminda Pushpa Kumara [2018] HKCA 400; and Nupur Mst v Director of Immigration [2018] HKCA 524.

11.  In the Applicant’s case, the fact is that it has been established by both the Director and the Board in their respective decisions that the risk of harm in his claim if real is a localized one and that it is not unreasonable or unsafe for him to relocate to other part of India, there is simply no justification to afford him with non-refoulement protection in Hong Kong: see TK v Jenkins & Anor [2013] 1 HKC 526.

12.  Having considered the decisions of both the Director and the Board with rigorous examination and anxious scrutiny, I do not find any error of law or procedural unfairness in either of them, nor any failure on their part to apply high standards of fairness in their consideration and assessment of the Applicant’s claim.

13.  Moreover, the Applicant recently on 14 January 2026 in writing requested to withdraw his application as his problems had been resolved that he now wants to return to his home country.

14.  In the premises, as I am for the given reasons not satisfied that there is any prospect of success in the Applicant’s intended application for judicial review, and in view of his latest confirmation of no more problem for him to return to his home country, I accordingly dismiss his leave 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