Santhanam Chandrakumar Alias Jeyarasa Mathanaraj v. Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office

HCAL 2899/2025

[2026] HKCFI 1867

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST No. 2899 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 Applicant being absent 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.This is a re-hearing of the applicant’s appeal by the Torture Claims Appeal Board (“the Board”) of different constitution, pursuant to an Order by consent dated 10 February 2025. By Decision of the Board dated 16 December 2025 (“the Board’s Decision”), the Board dismissed the applicant’s appeal against the Director’s Decision as described below.

2.The applicant applies for leave for judicial review of the Board’s Decision.

3.The applicant did not ask for a hearing.

The applicant

4.The applicant is a national of Sri Lanka. 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 his enemies as follows:

(1)  The government authorities of Sri Lanka at the instigation of Mr. Thilai Raj (“TR”);

(2)  TR and/or members of the Up-Country People’s Front (“UPF”) with the consent or acquiescence of the Sri Lankan authorities;

(3)  The Sri Lankan Army (“SLA”) government allied groups; the Sri Lankan police and/or the Criminal Intelligence Department (“CID” on the basis of the asserted history of suspicion of links with the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (“LTTE”); and

(4)  The LITTE.

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/HCAL002899_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 29 November 2018 (“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. The Board dismissed his appeal. He applied for leave for judicial review of the Board’s decision. The Court granted leave for him to apply for judicial review of the Board’s decision. By consent of the Director, the Board’s decision was set aside and his appeal was to be re-assessed by a Board of different constitution. On 9 October 2025, the Board of different constitution conducted an oral hearing for his appeal.

9.He was legally represented by a duty lawyer. The Director was also legally represented by government counsel. He had given oral evidence, which was tested by cross-examination and questions from the Board. The Board had also considered legal submissions from both parties. [238]-[323]

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

(1)  The applicant attempted to fabricate the evidence. [369]

(2)  The Board was not satisfied that there are substantial or strong grounds for believing that the applicant is at risk of harm on any of the bases he has claimed: the LTTE; TR or his father’s political opponents; as a failed asylum seeker; or because he is Tamil. [394]

(3)  The Board was not satisfied that there are substantial or strong grounds or a real chance or a real risk that the applicant would suffer harm amounting to torture, a risk to his life, cruel or inhuman treatment or degrading treatment or punishment or torture, or persecution if he is refouled to Sri Lanka. [395]

(4)  Applying the above findings to the applicable risks of the applicant’s claim, the Board found that he is not entitled to non-refoulement protection in Hong Kong. [425]

11.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

12.The applicant has filed Form 86 dated 30 December 2025 for leave to apply for judicial review of the Board’s Decision.

13.In support of his application, the applicant complained that the Board did not give an opportunity for his wife and mother-in-law to give evidence in support of his appeal.

DISCUSSION

14.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).

15.The Court will bear in mind that the Board’s Decision should be examined with rigorous examination and anxious scrutiny.

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 Board’s Decision has set out a very detailed record of the proceedings before it. It did not have any application from the applicant’s duty lawyer to call his wife or mother-in-law to give evidence for his appeal. The applicant has not revealed what evidence his wife and mother-in-law will give in support of his claim. His complaint has not merit.

18.There is no reason for the Court to interfere with the Board’s Decision.

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

DISPOSITION

20.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 1^st day of April 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