Maria Glory Priya v. Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office

Case No.HCAL 1083/2025[2025] HKCFI 5039

Court

High Court CFI

Date03 Nov 2025

Judge—

Case Document

100%

HCAL 1083/2025

[2025] HKCFI 5039

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST No. 1083 of 2025

BETWEEN
	Maria Glory Priya	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 documents only; or

consideration of documents and Applicant being absent in open court;

Order by Deputy High Court Judge K.W. Lung:

Leave to apply for Judicial Review be dismissed.

Observations for the Applicant:

CONCLUSION

1.This application should be dismissed, not because it has no merit, but because the Board had allowed her appeal against the Director’s Notice of Decision dated 14 January 2025 (“the Director’s Decision”), which refused her non-refoulement claim. The Board has reversed the Director’s Decision. The matter should be remitted to the Director of Immigration (“the Director”) for further consideration and determination.

2.I shall state this case briefly below.

THE APPLICATION

3.The applicant applies for leave to apply for judicial review of the Decision dated 29 April 2025 of the Torture Claims Appeal Board (“the Board’s Decision).

4.The applicant did not request a hearing.

5.Pursuant to Order 20, rule 8 and Order 53, rule 3(6) of the Rules of the High Court, Form 86 is amended to the effect that the proposed respondent is the Board and the Director of Immigration is the interested party.

The applicant

6.The applicant is a national of India. She was an illegal immigrant. She came to Hong Kong as a visitor on 19 November 2023 and was permitted to stay until 3 December 2023, but overstayed and surrendered to the Immigration Department where she lodged a non-refoulement claim on the basis that, if refouled, she will be harmed or killed because of an unpaid debt owed by her late husband.

7.Her husband had a real estate business in 2016. In April 2023, he committed suicide. A few days after the funeral, a man called Joss came to the applicant’s home and claimed that her late husband owed him 4.5 million Indian Rupees. He demanded the applicant to pay her late husband’s debt. He gave her a few months to pay. From May to August 2023, Joss and his subordinates came to her home once per month to demand payment. She had paid some interest. She was unable to pay the debt. Joss came with his subordinates and police officers to demand payment, warning her that if she was unable to pay, she would be forbidden to bury her husband. She was afraid and moved to live with her relative in Bangalore for one month. She did not want to live for the rest of life in fear. She came to Hong Kong.

8.Details of her claim are set out in the Board’s Decision. See hyperlink

https://legalref.judiciary.hk/doc/judg/html/vetted/other/en/2025/HCAL001083_2025_files/the_Board's_Decision.pdf

The Director’s Decision

9.The Director considered the applicant’s claim in relation to the following risks:

a.  risk of torture under Part VIIC of the Immigration Ordinance, Cap. 115, (“the Ordinance”) (“Torture risk”);

b.  risk of violation of the right to life under Article 2 of Section 8 of the Hong Kong Bill of Rights Ordinance, Cap. 383 (“HKBOR”) (“BOR 2 risk”);

c.  risk of torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment (“CIDTP”) under Article 3 of Section 8 of the HKBOR (“BOR 3 risk”); and

d.  risk of persecution by reference to the non-refoulement principle under Article 33 of the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees and its 1967 Protocol (“Refugee Convention”) (“Persecution risk”).

10.By way of the Director’s Decision, the Director dismissed the applicant’s claim because it was unsubstantiated.

The Board’s Decision

11.The applicant appealed the Director’s Decision to the Board. On 12 March 2025, the Board conducted an oral hearing for her. She had given oral evidence and answered the Board’s questions.

12.Having considered the evidence, the Board found that although there were inconsistencies of her evidence given to the immigration officer and to the Board, the Board accepted her evidence before it because it had tested her evidence for more than 2 hours. The Board accepted her allegations that her late husband’s death was caused by Joss’s pressure on him; that corrupt police might be involved as some police officers had gone to her home with Joss; that sexual harassment on her would be possible and she would not obtain state protection, nor could she avoid such risk by internal relocation because she only had low level education, having married her husband at the age of 16; and that she had a real risk of harm if she returns to India. See paragraphs 49-61.

13.For the above reasons, the Board disagreed with the Director and reversed the Director’s Decision.

Dated the 3^rd day of November 2025

(Alfred Chan)
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 3/11/2025 Maria Glory Priya 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 3/11/2025 Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office Putative Respondent’s ref. no.: USM 25510 Director of Immigration Putative Interested Party’s ref. no.: INCL-000716-24(9) (CZ) Department of Justice, Senior Assistant Law Officer (Civil Law) (Civil Litigation Unit 2)

Form CALL-1