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

HCAL 721/2020

[2025] HKCFI 2909

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST No. 721 of 2020

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
	cconsideration of the documents and oral submissions by the Applicant in open court;

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

Observations for the Applicant:

1.  By a Form 86 filed on 21 April 2020 (“Form 86”), the Applicant sought leave for judicial review of the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-Refoulement Claims Petition Office (“the TCAB”) made on 30 March 2020 (“the TCAB Decision”).  A copy of the TCAB Decision can be viewed by the following hyperlink[1].

2.  The TCAB Decision was made pursuant to a petition/appeal from a decision of the Director of Immigration (“DI”) dated 8 January 2019.  DI has been named as both a putative respondent and a putative interested party.  I amended the Form 86 on my own motion to name DI as just a putative interested party.

3.  In his Form 86 and supporting affirmation, the Applicant did not point to any errors of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality of the TCAB Decision.  In the oral hearing of this leave application, the Applicant did not advance any argument in support of the application and merely said his problem in India has been ongoing and thus he cannot go back.  When I asked him if his problem was the same one assessed by the TCAB, viz., the threat from his girlfriend’s family, the Applicant answered yes.

4.  The TCAB had conducted an oral hearing for the Applicant’s appeal/petition.  It came to the view that the Applicant has no real risk of facing persecution, torture or infringement of his rights under Articles 2 and 3 of the Hong Kong Bill of Rights because he had encountered no further trouble from the girlfriend’s family after he moved to a district in India which was away from his home.  The TCAB found that the Applicant had a viable internal relocation alternative.

5.  In the absence of any errors of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality, the Court would not reopen the TCAB’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).  I have reviewed the TCAB Decision vigorously, but do not detect anything to suggest that the Applicant’s proposed judicial review is reasonably arguable.  The leave application is thus 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