BabelCite

Ajay Kumar v. Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office

Case No.HCAL 1391/2021[2026] HKCFI 1390
Court
High Court CFI
Date10 Apr 2026
Judge—
Case Document
100%

HCAL 1391/2021

[2026] HKCFI 1390

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST No. 1391 of 2021

BETWEEN
  Ajay Kumar 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:

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

Observations for the Applicant:

1.By a Form 86 filed on 5 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 4 August 2021 (“the Board’s Decision”), which was made pursuant to a petition/appeal from the decision of the Director of Immigration (“DI”) dated 6 December 2018.  A copy of the Board’s Decision can be seen by the following hyperlink[1]. 

2.According to the Board’s Decision, the non-refoulement claim of the Applicant, an Indian, was based on a family dispute between him and his uncle over 2 shops.  Physical violence was alleged.  In spite of the Applicant’s initial absence from the first arranged hearing before the Board, the Applicant ultimately appeared before the Board on 23 June 2021 with the assistance of an interpreter.  Based on the written materials available to the Board and the Applicant’s answers during the hearing, the Board found the Applicant’s factual account inconsistent; he was also unable to give satisfactory explanations over certain important matters in his claim.  The Board did not consider the central elements of the Applicant’s claim credible, and dismissed the appeal/petition on that ground.

3.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 and assessed intensely its factual issues. 

4.This application for leave to apply for judicial review is therefore dismissed.

 

 

Dated the 10th day of April 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 10 April 2026


Ajay Kumar

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 10 April 2026

Torture Claims Appeal Board/ Non-Refoulement Claims Petition Office
Putative Respondent’s ref. no.:
USM 14944/18/12/301/IN2961

Director of Immigration
Putative Interested Party’s ref. no.:
QA T/C 5041/18 (formerly RBCZ 14538/15)

Department of Justice,
Senior Assistant Law Officer
(Civil Law)
(Civil Litigation Unit 2)


Form CALL-1