THUVAMPARA VISHNU v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

HCAL 1501/2022

[2026] HKCFI 4316

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST No. 1501 of 2022

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 oral submissions by the Applicant 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 8 December 2022 of the Torture Claims Appeal Board (“the Board’s Decision”), dismissing the appeal against the Director’s Decision as described below.

2.  The applicant appeared before the Court on 20 July 2026.

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 the people the Islamist political parties known as Social Democratic Party of India and Popular Front of India because of his love affair with his Muslim girlfriend and his Hindu background.

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/2022/HCAL001501_2022_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 9 February 2022 (“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 3 November 2022, 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 that his evidence was riddled with inconsistencies and suspicious allegations; that he was not telling the truth, and all the matters including the stated threats, attacks and detention by his enemies were not accepted [34] & [37]; that police protection will be available to him, and internal relocation would not be necessary, but if in need, it is viable if he returns to India.[59]-[60]

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 15 December 2022 for leave to apply for judicial review of the Board’s Decision.

12.  The applicant has raised the grounds below to challenge the Board’s Decision,

(1)  The Board’s Decision is unreasonable or irrational in the public law sense and unfair.

(2)  The Board had unlawfully fettered its discretion.

(3)  The Board failed to meet the greater care and duty owned to him as a self‑represented person.

(4)  The adjudicator had not considered his case properly and he relied on the source of news not officially recognized or simply hearsay.

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. Before me, the applicant said he wants to return to his country as his problems there have been solved. He also understands that this Court will dismiss his application on his submissions.

15.  In view of the applicant’s submissions before the Court, the reasons under paragraph 12 are insignificant.

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