Captain Singh v. Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office

HCAL 780/2020

[2025] HKCFI 3034

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST No. 780 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
	consideration of the documents and oral submissions by the Applicant in open court;

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

1.  The Applicant’s Form 86 be amended to add the Director of Immigration as a putative interested party; and

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

Observations for the Applicant:

1.By a Form 86 filed on 27 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 (“TCAB”) made on 13 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 August 2018. I amended the Form 86 on my own motion to name DI as 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. According to the TCAB Decision, TCAB conducted an oral hearing for the Applicant’s appeal/petition. After hearing, TCAB found that the person the Applicant claimed to be in fear of would have no interest in pursuing him if he returned to India. Moreover, the Applicant had returned to India on two occasions since he first came to Hong Kong before his non-refoulement claim was submitted.

4.It has been reiterated time and again that the primary responsibility for the factual assessment of whether any future risk of ill-treatment exists lies with TCAB. In the absence of any errors of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality, the Court would not reopen 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).

5.I have reviewed the TCAB Decision vigorously, but do not find the proposed judicial review reasonably arguable. The leave application is thus dismissed.

Dated the 16^th day of July 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