Mahinder Kaur v. Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office

Case No.HCAL 1479/2021[2026] HKCFI 1625

Court

High Court CFI

Date24 Mar 2026

Judge—

Case Document

100%

HCAL 1479/2021

[2026] HKCFI 1625

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST No. 1479 of 2021

BETWEEN
	Mahinder Kaur	Applicant
	and
	Torture Claims Appeal Board /	Putative
	Non-Refoulement Claims Petition Office	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 the documents only; or
	consideration of the documents and the Applicant being absent in open court;

Order by Deputy High Court Judge (Non-Refoulement Claims) Lewis Law:

1. The Director of Immigration be added as a putative interested party to these proceedings; and

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

Observations for the Applicant:

1.By a Form 86 filed on 25 October 2021, the Applicant sought leave for judicial review of the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-Refoulement Claims Petition Office (“the Board”) dated 15 October 2021 (“the Board’s Decision”), which was made pursuant to a petition/appeal from the decision of the Director of Immigration (“DI”) dated 17 March 2020.

2.The Applicant was absent in the hearing of this leave application, scheduled firstly for 30 December 2025 and later refixed to 25 February 2026.

3.Later on 12 March 2026, the Court received a letter from the DI, in which it was said (a) removal proceedings of the Applicant will be resumed as soon as practicable; (b) the Applicant had expressed in an earlier letter dated 10 February 2026 that she would like to withdraw her judicial review application as she wanted to return to her home country.

4.The Applicant has not filed any court document to formally seek leave to withdraw this leave application; neither did I have a chance to hear from the Applicant personally. In view of the letter from the DI, I tend to accept that the Applicant has decided to withdraw this court application on her own volition and free will. However, out of abundance of caution, I will still consider the merits of the leave application.

5.According to the Board’s Decision, the non-refoulement claim of the Applicant, an Indian, was based on a family dispute. Physical violence and threat to take the Applicant’s life from the Applicant’s husband were alleged. The Board however came to the finding that the Applicant’s factual account was not reliable and dismissed her appeal/petition against DI’s first tier decision.

6.The Applicant has not set out any grounds of judicial review in the Form 86 or supporting affirmation. I have considered the Board’s Decision vigorously, but am unable to detect any reasonable argument that the decision was tainted by any illegality, irrationality or procedural impropriety. In my view, the Board has conducted an anxious scrutiny of the facts of the case, with an oral hearing, and assessed intensely its factual issues. The application for leave to apply for leave is thus dismissed.

Dated the 24^th day of March 2026

(Klein Tse)
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 24 March 2026 Mahinder Kaur 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 24 March 2026 Torture Claims Appeal Board/ Non-Refoulement Claims Petition Office Putative Respondent’s ref. no.: USM 16818/20/3/46/IN3161 Director of Immigration Putative Interested Party’s ref. no.: QA T/C 1181/19 (formerly RBCZ 10902/19) Department of Justice, Senior Assistant Law Officer (Civil Law) (Civil Litigation Unit 2)

Form CALL-1