Madduri Gangadhar v. Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office

HCAL 1139/2025

[2026] HKCFI 187

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST No. 1139 of 2025

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 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 2 May 2025 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 and he appeared before the Court on 24 December 2025.

3.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

4.The applicant is a national of India. He is an illegal immigrant. 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 people from the Telangana Rashira Samith and the Indian National Congress (“his enemies”) due to his political affiliation with the Bharitiya Janata Party (“BJP”). He was attacked by his enemies in India.

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/HCAL001139_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:

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”).

7.By way of Notice of Decision dated 24 January 2025 (“the Director’s Decision”), the Director dismissed the applicant’s claim on all applicable risks because it was unsubstantiated.

The Board’s Decision

8.The applicant appealed the Director’s Decision to the Board. On 28 March 2025, the Board conducted an oral hearing for his appeal. He had given oral evidence and answered the Board’s questions.

9.Having considered the evidence, the Board made the findings below.

(1)  The applicant had not provided any evidence that he had any profile in India, such as that he had 7,000 followers and he was a motivational speaker. The Board expected evidence like Facebook or other social media reports. [54]

(2)  The Board was not satisfied that his enemies would inflict harm on him if he returns to India. [59]

(3)  His claims are extremely unpersuasive, lacking in credibility and indicative of the fact that they are fabricated. The board further found that internal relocation is viable. [63]&[69]

(4)  The Board found his claims have been fabricated in their entirety. He may relocate to another part of India where BJP is in the majority. [76]

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 16 May 2025 for leave to apply for judicial review of the Board’s Decision.

12.In support of his application, the applicant has raised the grounds below to challenge the Board’s Decision.

(1)  The Board’s Decision is wrong.

(2)  The adjudicator failed to give him sufficient time and chance to arrange relevant evidence for his appeal.

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, the applicant said that Hindi was not his main language. His main language was Telegu. However, Telegu interpreter was not available. He said that he could manage with Hindi and the interpreter confirmed she could communicate with him. I have also considered this language problem before the Board. The Board was satisfied that the hearing was able to proceed with a Hindi interpreter. Therefore, the proceeding proceeded with a Hindi interpreter. I was satisfied that he was able to express himself before the Court.

15.He said he wanted to protect his children, who are going to school and he wanted to stay here a few years more, so there would be election. However, he admitted that he had failed to obtain evidence from India in support his case to the Board as between October 2024 and March 2025.

16.In Re: Kartini [2019] HKCA 1022, 9 September 2019, the Court of Appeal held:

“13. (1) … …Assessment of evidence and COI materials and 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.”

17.The grounds under paragraph 12 are not valid. The first ground is his bare assertion only. The second ground does not help as he had never raised this issue with the Board. The applicant has raised no valid ground to challenge the Board’s findings. Moreover, he admitted that he had failed to obtain evidence from India since October 2024. He has to bear the consequences himself.

18.The applicant fails to show that he has any realistic prospect of success in his proposed judicial review of the Board’s Decision.

DISPOSITION

19.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 14^th day of January 2026.

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