Bhatti Amandeep v. Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office
|
HCAL 124/2025 [2025] HKCFI 4287 IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST No. 124 of 2025
Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review Following;
Order by Deputy High Court Judge K.W. Lung: 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 24 December 2024 of the Torture Claims Appeal Board (“the Board’s Decision”), dismissing the appeal against the Director’s Decision as described below. 2.The applicant asked for a hearing. He appeared before the Court on 3 September 2025. The applicant 3.The applicant is a national of India. He is an illegal immigrant, having attempted to enter Hong Kong as a visitor on 5 September 2024 and was refused entry by the Immigration Department. 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 2 men (“the gangsters”) because of personal grudges. 4.According to the applicant, there was a car crash incident in India in June 2024 where a motorcycle with the Gangsters drove on the wrong lane and hit the front passenger side of the applicant’s vehicle. Afterwards, the applicant received a threatening note that they would kill him. There were further death threat phone calls in mid-July 2024, which led to the applicant relocating to Jammu and Srinagar. He finally chose to come to Hong Kong. 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/2025/HCAL000124_2025_files/the_Board's_Decision.pdf. The Director’s Decision 6.The Director considered the applicant’s claim in relation to the following risks:
7.By way of Notice of Decision dated 30 October 2024 (“the Director’s Decision”), the Director dismissed the applicant’s claim because it was unsubstantiated. Besides, state protection is available and internal relocation is viable, which will mitigate or neutralize the applicable risks. The Board’s Decision 8.The applicant appealed the Director’s Decision to the Board. On 9 December 2024, the Board conducted an oral hearing for his appeal. The applicant had given oral evidence and answered the Board’s questions. 9.Having considered the evidence, the Board found the facts below.
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 7 January 2025 for leave to apply for judicial review of the Board’s Decision. 12.In support of his application, the applicant attached a statement of grounds, which I shall summarize below.
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, he said that his complaint was that the Board did not believe his evidence. I asked him about the statement of grounds attached to Form 86 with his signature. He said that it was prepared by someone else. He did not give him the instructions and he simply signed on the statement. He said that he had no idea of the contents himself. 15.In Re: Kartini [2019] HKCA 1022, 9 September 2019, the Court of Appeal held:
16.In view of the applicant’s admission that those grounds under paragraph 12 were not his instructions, those grounds are insignificant. The applicant has raised no valid ground to challenge the Board’s findings. The assessment of the evidence is within the province of the Board. 17.The applicant fails to show that he has any realistic prospect of success in his proposed judicial review of the Board’s Decision. DISPOSITION 18.I refuse to grant leave to the applicant to apply for judicial review of the Board’s Decision. Accordingly, I dismiss his application. Dated the 23rd day of September 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 |
Cases cited in this judgment