Thangarasu Sankar v. Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office

HCAL 176/2021

[2025] HKCFI 5675

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST No. 176 of 2021

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 oral submissions by the Applicant in open court;

Order by Deputy High Court Judge (Non-refoulement Claims) Philips Wong:

1.  Form 86 be amended as follows:- (1) the Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non‑refoulement Claims Petition Office be named as the only Putative Respondent; (2) the Director of Immigration be named as the only Putative Interested Party; and (3) the date of the decision in respect of which relief is sought be amended to 22 January 2021.

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

Observations for the Applicant:

Introduction

1.By Form 86 filed on 18 February 2021 (the “Form”), the Applicant applied for leave to apply for judicial review (the “Leave Application”) against the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office (the “Board”) dated 22 January 2021 (the “Board’s Decision”).

2.In the Form, the Applicant named both the Board and the Director of Immigration (the “Director”) as the proposed respondents. The Applicant further named the Director and himself as the proposed interested parties. As it is trite that the Board should be the proposed respondent and 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.In the Form, the date of decision in respect of which relief is sought was stated to be 18 February 2021. At the hearing on 27 October 2025, the Applicant confirmed that he had mistakenly stated the date of the Leave Application therein. As the Applicant’s intention is to apply for judicial review in respect of the Board’s Decision, I make an order to amend the date of the decision on the Form to 22 January 2021.

4.The Applicant requested an oral hearing for the Leave Application. The hearing took place on 27 October 2025 and the Applicant attended in person. At the hearing, apart from clarifying the date as mentioned above, the Applicant indicated that he had nothing to say in respect of the Leave Application.

Background

5.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[1] is included below for reference.

Discussion

6.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 or procedural unfairness or irrationality in the decision of the Board. (See Nupur Mst v Director of Immigration [2018] HKCA 524, at §14)

7.The Applicant did not provide any grounds in support of the Leave Application in the Form. In the supporting Affirmation, the Applicant simply stated that the Board’s Decision is wrong and that his life is in danger in his country.

8.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 was entitled to reject the claim based on the evidence and the reasons provided (§§97-143 of the Board’s Decision). In particular, I see no errors committed by the Board in finding that the Applicant is not of any adverse interest to Vaith or to his associates or to the AIADMK if he returns to India now (§137 of the Board’s Decision). Therefore, there is not a real risk that the Applicant will face any danger if he returns there.

9.I find that 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.

10.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

11.In the premises, I make an order that the Form be amended as described above and the Leave Application be dismissed.

Dated the 25^th day of November 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