Angotra Vidhi v. Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office

HCAL 1152/2025

[2026] HKCFI 188

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST No. 1152 of 2025

Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review
NOTIFICATION of the Judge’s decision (Ord. 53 r. 3)

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 12 May 2025 of the Torture Claims Appeal Board (“the Board’s Decision).

2.The applicant asked for a hearing.  However, she was absent at the hearing on 24 December 2025.  I shall deal with her application on the papers.

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.  She was an illegal immigrant.  She lodged a non-refoulement claim on the basis that, if refouled, she will be harmed or killed by her boyfriend’s family because they opposed their relationship.  They threatened to kill her.     

5.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/HCAL001152_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 the Notice of Decision dated 4 March 2025 (“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 2 May 2025, the Board conducted an oral hearing for her.  The applicant had given evidence and answered the Board’s questions.

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

(1)  The applicant was evasive in giving evidence.  Many aspects of her account lacked detail and was inconsistent with other evidence or simply defied logic.  See examples in paragraph 16.

(2)  State protection is available to her if she returns to India. [22], [44] & [46]

(3)  Her chance of risk of harm if she returns to India is low and there was nothing to suggest that her perceived risk of harm from her enemies was real and/or imminent. [34] & [35]

(4)  Internal relocation is viable. [49]

10.For the above reasons, the Board dismissed her 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 19 May 2025 for leave to apply for judicial review of the Board’s Decision.

12.In support of her application, the applicant has raised against the Board that there were other cases where the applicants were returned to India and they were killed upon their arrival.  She had raised other grounds against the Director, whose decisions were superseded by the Board’s Decision.  Therefore, I will not consider them here.

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 Decisions should be examined with rigorous examination and anxious scrutiny.   

15.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.”

16.The applicant’s ground under paragraph 12 is not valid to challenge the Board’s Decision as other examples are not relevant to her application in this case.  There is no evidence to show what she alleged was the fact.

17.The applicant fails to show that she has any realistic prospect of success in her 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 her 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