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

HCAL 1562/2022

[2026] HKCFI 1955

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST NO 1562 OF 2022

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 (Non-refoulement Claims) Jeffrey Chau:

1.   Form 86 be amended, naming the Director of Immigration as the Putative Interested Party.

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

Observations for the Applicant:

Introduction

1.By a Form 86 filed on 23 December 2022 (the “Form 86”), the Applicant applied for leave to apply for judicial review against the decision by the Torture Claims Appeal Board (the “TCAB”) dated 2 December 2022 (the “TCAB Decision”), which affirmed the decision of the Director of Immigration (the “DOI”) dated 26 November 2021 (the “DOI Decision”).

2.I amend the Form 86 on my own motion to name only the DOI as the putative interested party.

3.The Applicant requested for a hearing of this application. She was absent from the hearing. I see no irregularity in the notification process.

Background

4.The Applicant is a national of India. In gist, she fears that she would be harmed or killed by the father of her boyfriend who committed suicide. The Applicant’s personal background, the relevant facts and relevant procedural history have been sufficiently set out in the TCAB Decision, which can be viewed through a hyperlink[1]. I shall therefore not repeat them. Unless otherwise specified, TCAB’s abbreviations and descriptions are adopted herein.

Discussion

5.The leave application operates as a filtering process and there is no requirement or expectation to give elaborate reasons for my decision: Re Zunariyah [2018] HKCA 14 at [23].  It is sufficient to state my observations after considering the TCAB Decision and the materials adduced by the Applicant.

6.I remind myself that in a judicial review, this court does not provide a further avenue of appeal. While I also remind myself that in non-refoulement cases, I would adopt an enhanced standard in scrutinizing the decision of the TCAB given the seriousness of the issue at hand, this court would not usurp the role of the TCAB, which together with the DOI are the primary decision-makers.  A finding of fact is exclusively within the realm of the TCAB, and this 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 TCAB: Nupur Mst v Director of Immigration [2018] HKCA 524 at [14(1)].  There must be a reasonably arguable case with a realistic prospect of success before leave for judicial review will be granted: Peter Po Fun Chan v Winnie Cheung (2007) 10 HKCFAR 676.

7.In a proper Form 86, an applicant is required to identify the grounds of judicial review clearly and succinctly: Ho Loy v Director of Environmental Protection (unreported, HCAL 21/2015, 22 December 2016) at [142], and further to make full and frank disclosure of all material facts to be verified by an affidavit.

8.The Applicant did not state any grounds on which the relief is sought other than asserting in her affirmation that “I am not satisfied with the Decision given by Torture Claims Appeal Board. I cannot go back to my country at this moment because my life is not save (sic) in my own country. Please help me to stay here until my problem will be solved.” Thus, it does not point to any error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality of the TCAB Decision.

9.As can be seen from the TCAB Decision, the TCAB took into account all the evidence available and found that on the basis of the same, applying the correct legal principles in respect of all applicable grounds under the Unified Screening Mechanism, the Applicant’s allegations were insufficient to make out any of the applicable grounds [30-37, 40-59]. The TCAB found that the Applicant was evasive to many questions and that she was not telling the truth. There were many areas of inconsistencies, suspicion and exaggerations in her story [31, 37]. For example, the TCAB found that was unable to give the details about her boyfriend’s father whom she alleges to hold a high position, and was unable to produce a copy of medical reports despite having claimed she was admitted to the hospital or the FIR or court documents relating to the case filed by her boyfriend’s father against her [31(a), (g)]. She also could not credibly explain why she was willing to return to her home country when the situation there was (allegedly) so risky [31(m)], or why her boyfriend’s father could not locate her when she was in New Delhi in 2018 when he was allegedly so powerful [31(o)]. Upon consideration of all material evidence, the TCAB concluded that the Applicant had no real chance of being harmed and that even if there were such a chance, state protection and relocation would be available to her [44-59].

10.All in all, I do not see any errors of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the TCAB Decision, despite rigorous examination and anxious scrutiny. The Applicant’s intended challenge to the TCAB Decision is not reasonably arguable, and accordingly the application for leave to apply for judicial review is dismissed.

Dated the 8^th 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