Gurdeep Singh v. Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office
|
HCAL 2362/2020 [2025] HKCFI 4970 IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST No. 2362 of 2020
Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review Following;
Order by Deputy High Court Judge (Non-refoulement Claims) Philips Wong:
Observations for the Applicant: Introduction 1.By Form 86 filed on 2 December 2020 (the “Form”), the Applicant applied for leave to apply for judicial review (the “Leave Application”) against the decision made by the Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non‑refoulement Claims Petition Office (the “Board”) on 30 October 2020 (the “Board’s Decision”). 2.In the Form, the Applicant named the Board as both the proposed respondent and the proposed interested party. As it is trite that the Board should be the proposed respondent and the Director of Immigration (the “Director”) should be the proposed interested party in an application of this sort, I make an order to amend the Form on the court’s own motion. 3.The Applicant requested an oral hearing for the application. The hearing took place on 1 September 2025. Notice of hearing was issued to the Applicant in advance at the address provided by the Applicant on the Form. This was also confirmed to be the latest address the Applicant had on record with the Immigration Department. Attempts were also made to contact and remind the Applicant of the hearing by phone (at the number provided by the Applicant on the Administrative Form and on Form No. 8) on 28 and 29 August 2025 but the Applicant could not be reached on both occasions. The Applicant did not attend the hearing. As proper notice had been given to the Applicant at the address provided by him, and attempts had also been made to remind the Applicant of the hearing at the number he provided, I consider it appropriate to proceed with the Leave Application in the absence of the Applicant. Background 4.The Applicant’s background, the basis of his claim and the arguments he advanced had been set out in detail in the Board’s Decision, and it is not necessary for me to repeat the same here. The hyperlink to the Board’s Decision is included below[1] for reference. Discussion 5.The applicable legal principles relating to application of this sort are well established. The role of the Court in a judicial review is not to provide a further avenue of appeal. The primary decision makers are the Director and the Board. Though in non-refoulement cases, the Court will adopt an enhanced standard in scrutinizing the decision of the Board due to the seriousness of the issue at hand, the Court should not usurp the role of the Board. Assessment of evidence, country of origin information (COI) materials, risk of harm, state protection and viability of internal relocation are primarily within the province of the Board (and the Director). The Court will not intervene by way of judicial review unless there are errors of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the decision of the Board. (See Nupur Mst v Director of Immigration [2018] HKCA 524, at §14) 6.In the Form, the Applicant did not provide any grounds in support of the Leave Application. In the supporting Affirmation, the Applicant simply stated that he is not satisfied with the Board’s Decision, and that he cannot go back to his country because his life is not safe there. 7.I have considered the Board’s Decision in detail. I do not find any error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality. Neither has the Applicant been able to demonstrate any of the same. There is nothing to indicate that the Board had failed to take into account any relevant matters. The Board’s Decision was comprehensive with adequate reasons provided. The Board was entitled to reject the Applicant’s claims based on its evaluation of the evidence and the reasoning provided (§§36-91 of the Board’s Decision). I do not see any errors committed by the Board. The Board’s Decision satisfies the enhanced Wednesbury test and is not Wednesbury unreasonable or irrational. I am not satisfied that the Applicant’s intended challenge of the Board’s Decision is reasonably arguable with any realistic prospects of success. Accordingly, I refuse to grant leave for judicial review. 8.Leave application of this sort is meant to be a filtering process and I am not expected to give elaborated reasons for my decision (see Re Zunariyah [2018] HKCA 14, at §23). Suffice for me to state that in reaching the decision, I have considered all the relevant documents before me. Conclusion 9.In the light of the reasons provided above, I make an order that the Form be amended as described above and the Leave Application be dismissed. Dated the 21st day of October 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