Jasvir Singh v. Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office
|
HCAL 124/2020 [2025] HKCFI 2502 IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST No. 124 of 2020
Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review Following;
Order by Deputy High Court Judge (Non-refoulement Claims) Martin Wong:
Observations for the Applicant: Introduction 1.By a Form 86 filed on 13 January 2020 (the “Form 86”), the Applicant applied for leave to apply for judicial review of a decision by the Torture Claims Appeal Board (the “TCAB”) dated 8 January 2020 (the “TCAB Decision”), which affirmed the decision by the Director of Immigration (the “DOI”) dated 8 August 2018. He named the TCAB and the DOI both as proposed respondents and named the TCAB also an interested party. 2.I amended the Form 86 on my own motion to name only the TCAB as the putative respondent and the DOI as a putative interested party. 3.The Applicant requested for a hearing of this application and he attended the same. When asked if he had anything to add he confirmed that he had not. Background 4.The Applicant is a national of India. He seeks non-refoulement protection on the basis that he will be harmed or killed by his uncle due to a land dispute if he is returned. His personal background, the relevant facts and relevant procedural history have been sufficiently set out in the TCAB Decision, which can be assessed through a hyperlink[1], and I shall not repeat the same herein. Discussion 5.In a judicial review, this court does not provide a further avenue of appeal. Though in non-refoulement case an enhanced standard in scrutinizing the decision of the TCAB is required given the seriousness of the issue at hand, this court should not usurp the role of the TCAB, which together with the DOI are the primary decision-makers. This 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 TCAB (Nupur Mst v Director of Immigration [2018] HKCA 524, [14(1)]). There must be a reasonably arguable claim with a realistic prospect of success before leave for judicial review will be granted (Peter Po Fun Chan v Winnie Cheung & Anr (2007) 10 HKCFAR 676). 6.In his affirmation filed in support of the Form 86, the Applicant did not point to any error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality of the TCAB Decision. 7.As can be seen from the TCAB Decision, although it was decided that an oral hearing was not required [28], the TCAB took into account of all the evidence available [1-19] and found that on the basis of the same, applying also the correct legal principles in respect of the four applicable grounds under the USM [16-26] and considering also the relevant COI [33-34], the Applicant’s allegations were insufficient to make out any of the applicable grounds [29-43]. 8.Further, the TCAB also concluded that state protection was available [36] and that internal relocation was available on the basis of available evidence in any event [44-48]. 9.All in all, I do not see any errors of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the TCAB Decision, despite rigorous examination and anxious scrutiny. Conclusion 10.For the above reasons, I am not satisfied that this court should intervene by way of judicial review. I therefore dismiss the application. Dated the 17th day of June 2025.
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 [1] https://legalref.judiciary.hk/doc/judg/html/vetted/other/en/2020/HCAL000124_2020_files/the_Board's_Decision.pdf |
Cases cited in this judgment