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

HCAL 1618/2021

[2026] HKCFI 2189

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST No. 1618 of 2021

Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review

NOTIFICATION of the Judge’s decision (Ord. 53 r. 3)

Following:

	consideration of documents only;          or
	consideration of documents and oral submissions by the Applicant in open court;

Order by Deputy High Court Judge K.W. Lung:

Leave to apply for Judicial Review be refused.

Observations for the Applicant:

THE APPLICATION 

1.The applicant applies for leave to apply for judicial review of the Decision dated 18 November 2021 of the Torture Claims Appeal Board (“the Board’s Decision”), dismissing the appeal against the Director’s Decision as described below.

2.The applicant appeared before the Court on 1 April 2026.

The applicant                         

3.The applicant is a national of India. He is an illegal immigrant. He lodged a non-refoulement claim with the Director of Immigration (“the Director”) on the basis that, if refouled, he will be harmed or killed by his family as they opposed his relationship with his Indonesian girlfriend, whom he intends to marry.

4.Details of his claim are set out in the Board’s Decision. See hyperlink.

https://legalref.judiciary.hk/doc/judg/html/vetted/other/en/2021/HCAL001618_2021_files/the_Board's_Decision.pdf

The Director’s Decision

5.The Director considered the applicant’s claim in relation to the following risks:

a.  risk of torture under Part VIIC of the Immigration Ordinance, Cap. 115, (“the Ordinance”) (“Torture risk”);

b.  risk of violation of the right to life under Article 2 of Section 8 of the Hong Kong Bill of Rights Ordinance, Cap. 383 (“HKBOR”) (“BOR 2 risk”);

c.  risk of torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment (“CIDTP”) under Article 3 of Section 8 of the HKBOR (“BOR 3 risk”); and

d.  risk of persecution by reference to the non-refoulement principle under Article 33 of the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees and its 1967 Protocol (“Refugee Convention”) (“Persecution risk”).

6.By way of Notice of Decision dated 27 January 2021 (“the Director’s Decision”), the Director dismissed the applicant’s claim on all applicable risks because it was unsubstantiated.

The Board’s Decision

7.The applicant appealed the Director’s Decision to the Board. On 16 August 2021, the Board conducted an oral hearing for his appeal. He had given oral evidence and answered the Board’s questions.

8.Having considered the evidence, the Board made the findings below.

(1)  The Board accepted that the applicant’s mother expressed her opposition to his relationship with his girlfriend and she might have spoken aggressively. However, the Board did not accept that he may have real risk of serious or fatal harm if he returns to India. [73]

(2)  It found that the applicant’s claim and statement in his Notice of Appeal and does not advance his asserted need for non-refoulement protection. [74]

(3)  State protection will be available if he returns to India. [79]

(4)  Internal relocation is viable. [81]

9.For the reasons above, the Board dismissed his appeal and affirmed the Director’s Decision.

Application for leave to apply for judicial review of the Board’s Decision

10.The applicant has filed Form 86 dated 29 November 2021 for leave to apply for judicial review of the Board’s Decision.

11.The applicant did not raise any specific ground to challenge the Board’s Decision.

DISCUSSION

12.The role of this Court is supervisory, meaning that it ensures that the Board complied with the public law requirements in coming to the Board’s Decision on the applicant’s appeal. The Court will not usurp the fact-finding power vested in the Director and the Board. See TK v Michael C Jenkins Esq and Director of Immigration [2013] 1 HKC 526, §40 and Nupur Mst v Director of Immigration [2018] HKCA 524, §14 (1).

13.The Court will bear in mind that the Board’s Decision should be examined with rigorous examination and anxious scrutiny. Before me, the applicant said the Board’s Decision is not wrong. He further said that he had married a Hong Kong resident and he was waiting for a visa from the Director.

14.In Re: Kartini [2019] HKCA 1022, 9 September 2019, the Court of Appeal held:

“13. (1) … …Assessment of evidence and COI materials and risk of harm, state protection and viability of internal relocation are primarily within the province of the Board (and the Director). The 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 Board.”

15.The applicant has raised no valid ground to challenge the Board’s findings.

16.The applicant fails to show that he has any realistic prospect of success in his proposed judicial review of the Board’s Decision.

DISPOSITION

17.I refuse to grant leave to the applicant to apply for judicial review of the Board’s Decision. Accordingly, I dismiss his application.

Dated the 29^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