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

HCAL 1516/2021

[2026] HKCFI 1473

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST No. 1516 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 19 October 2021 as the decision sought to be reviewed and the Director of Immigration as only 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 2 November 2021, the Applicant sought leave for judicial review of a decision of the Director of Immigration (“DI”) dated 19 October 2021.  From a reading of the decision attached to the supporting affirmation, it was noted that the decision on 19 October 2021 was instead made by the Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-Refoulement Claims Petition Office (“the Board”) on appeal/petition from DI’s first tier decision dated 30 October 2020.  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 land dispute with an uncle, who was allegedly associated with a member of the Legislative Assembly.  He claimed that the uncle and his people had attacked him several times and threatened to kill him.  After an oral hearing, the Board did not make a finding against the Applicant’s credibility despite material inconsistencies over the evidence given.  However, the dispute was a private one, on which persecution risk was not applicable.  The Board also found reasonable internal relocation alternative given the Applicant was a fit and young man.  For those reasons, the Board considered the Applicant to be not subject to a real risk of ill-treatment if he returns to India, his home country.  

3.The Applicant has not set out any grounds of judicial review in the Form 86, and only said his claim had not been carefully considered and he would not be safe in his country 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.  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