Gurjinger Singh v. Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office

HCAL 1446/2021

[2026] HKCFI 1391

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST No. 1446 of 2021

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) Lewis Law:

1.   The Form 86 be amended to add the Director of Immigration as a putative interested party; and

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

Observations for the Applicant:

1.By a Form 86 filed on 18 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 29 September 2021 (“the Board’s Decision”), which was made pursuant to a petition/appeal from the decisions of the Director of Immigration (“DI”) dated 18 October 2013 (torture risk) and 29 January 2018 (other risks).  A copy of the Board’s Decision can be seen by the following hyperlink[1].  On my own motion, the DI is joined as a putative interested party to these proceedings.

2.The Applicant’s non-refoulement claim was handled together with the claims of his wife and his two sons by the DI and the Board.  This application was only filed by the Applicant for himself but not his wife and sons.  During the oral hearing of this application, the Applicant informed the Court that his sons have obtained Hong Kong Identity Card.  This Court would only focus on how the Board handled the Applicant’s own non-refoulement claim.

3.According to the Board’s Decision, the non-refoulement claim of the Applicant, an Indian Sikh, was based on the risk of ill-treatment from the Indian ruling party and Police; attacks to his extended family from persons claiming to be separatist terrorists were also mentioned in his factual account.  It was alleged by the Applicant that the Indian Police would randomly kill Sikh youths in Punjab to scare terrorists.  As the Applicant’s father was actively involved in a political party associated with a Sikh temple and his extended family had been suspected of harboring the terrorists, his family was particularly vulnerable to ill-treatment.  He alleged that he had been arrested by the Indian Police numerous times in the past since 1980s before he eventually came to Hong Kong in 2006.

4.After an intense factual inquiry into the Applicant’s claim, the Board essentially accepted the Applicant’s account of past events (despite its reservations over certain assertions), but rejected the claim that the Applicant remained to be a person of interest to the Indian Police, the authorities or the terrorists.  In coming to this finding, the Board took into account the Applicant’s past experiences of having travelled in and out of India without having been stopped, detained or arrested at the airport, as well as the change of local Government and political situation in India, especially in Punjab Province.  Furthermore, drawing on relevant country information, the Board found available State protection as matters stood in India at the time of the Board’s hearing and an available internal relocation alternative.  Risk of ill-treatment upon a return to India in future was not found to be established.  The appeal/petition was thus dismissed.

5.The Applicant has not set out any grounds of judicial review in the Form 86 or supporting affirmation.  In the oral hearing before this Court, the Applicant just emphasized he would be homeless in India as he had sold all his properties there and his family now resides in Hong Kong.  However, internal relocation was specifically considered by the Board based on the then evidence/submissions advanced for him.  He was legally represented by Duty Lawyer in the proceedings before the Board.  I did not detect any illegality, irrationality or procedural fairness in the Board’s handling of the issue.  His current situation is not a matter this Court should look at (as this Court only examines the legality of the Board’s process) and, in any event, it does not seem to me mere poverty or lack of family tie can constitute a sufficient reason to render an internal relocation alternative not reasonable under non-refoulement laws.   

6.I have considered the Board’s Decision vigorously, but am unable to detect any reasonable argument that the decision was tainted by public law errors.  In my view, the Board has conducted an anxious scrutiny of the facts of the case and assessed intensely its factual issues. 

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

Dated the 10^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