Case Document

100%

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

BETWEEN
	Jaideep Singh	Applicant
	And
	Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-Refoulement Claims Petition Office	Putative Respondent
	And
	Director of Immigration	Putative Interested Party

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;

Order by Deputy High Court Judge (Non-Refoulement Claims) Lewis Law:

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.

Dated the 9^th day of July 2025

(Cheung Ho Yat, Annson)
for Registrar, High Court

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

Notes for the Applicant: If leave has been granted, the Applicant or the Applicant’s solicitors must:
a) serve on the respondent and such interested parties as may be directed by the Court the order granting leave and any directions given within 14 days after the leave was granted (Order 53, rule 4A); b) issue the originating summons within 14 days after the grant of leave and serve it in accordance with Order 53, rule 5; and c) supply to every other party copies of every affidavit which the Applicant proposes to use at the hearing, including the affidavit in support of the application for leave (Order 53, rule 6(5)).		Sent to the Applicant on 9 July 2025 Jaideep Singh Applicant’s ref. no.: Nil.		Sent to the Putative Respondent / the Putative Respondent’s solicitors / such Putative Interested Parties as may be directed by the Court / the Putative Interested Parties’ solicitors on 9 July 2025 Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-Refoulement Claims Petition Office Putative Respondent’s ref. no.: USM 15394/19/1/267/IN3043 Director of Immigration Putative Interested Party’s ref. no.: QA T/C 4751/18 (formerly RBCZ 10480/17)[T3S130] Department of Justice, Senior Assistant Law Officer (Civil Law) (Civil Litigation Unit 2)