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

HCAL 1471/2021

[2026] HKCFI 1392

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST No. 1471 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 name the Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office as the putative respondent, its decision dated 7 July 2021 as the decision sought to be reviewed and the Director of Immigration as a putative interested party;

2.   Extension of time to file the Form 86 be refused; and

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

Observations for the Applicant:

1.By a Form 86 filed on 22 October 2021, the Applicant sought leave for judicial review of a decision by the Torture Claims Appeal Board dated 11 March 2021.  From a reading of the decision attached to the supporting affirmation, it was noted that the decision on 11 March 2021 was instead made by the Director of Immigration (“DI”).  The Court later obtained information from the Secretariat of the Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-Refoulement Claims Petition Office (“the Board”) that it actually made a decision in the Applicant’s claim on 7 July 2021 (“the Board’s Decision”) on appeal/petition from DI’s first tier decision.  A copy of the Board’s Decision can be seen by the following hyperlink[1]. Having explained to the Applicant this situation in the hearing of the present application, he agreed that the above order regarding amendment of Form 86 should be made to properly reflect the status of these proceedings.

2.The Applicant’s claim for non-refoulment protection arose from an alleged dispute with his uncles over a small plot of land that used to be owned by his grandfather.  On his grandfather’s death, the interest in the land passed to the Applicant’s father and the uncles in equal shares.  After an oral hearing, the Board found the Applicant not a witness of truth and that his account of a dispute over family land was wholly unreliable.  Moreover, he did not deny that he could live safely from his uncles if he relocates to another part of India (his country of origin).  It was against these reasons that he was found to be subject to no risk of ill-treatment under any of the applicable ground.   The appeal/petition was thus dismissed.

3.The Applicant has not set out any grounds of judicial review in the Form 86, and only said he could not go back to his country at this moment because his life would not be safe in the supporting affirmation.  There is no complaint of illegality, irrationality or procedural fairness.     

4.I have considered the Board’s Decision vigorously, but am unable to detect any reasonable argument that the decision was tainted by any 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. 

5.This application for leave to apply for judicial review is therefore dismissed. I also note that the filing of the Form 86 was after a 3-month period from the date of the Board’s Decision.  By reason of the lack of merits, but not the lack of explanation of delay, I also refuse extension of time to file the Form 86.

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