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

HCAL 2804/2025

[2026] HKCFI 2700

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST No. 2804 of 2025

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 Applicants:

THE APPLICATION

1.The applicant applies for leave to apply for judicial review of the Decision dated 15 December 2025 of the Torture Claims Appeal Board (“the Board’s Decision”), dismissing his appeal against the Director’s Decision as described below.

2.The applicant appeared before the Court on 4 May 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 girlfriend’s father and brother and their associates from Bharatiya Janata Party (“his enemies”) because of his love relationship with his girlfriend.

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/2025/HCAL002804_2025_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 13 October 2025 (“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 2 December 2025, the Board conducted an oral hearing by way of a video conference since the applicant was being detained 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 applicant’s story is true. [84]

(2)  However, his enemies did not have real intention to seriously harm or kill him. Their purpose was to scare or frighten him in revenge for his relationship with his girlfriend. Since the applicant does not have any further contact with her, there is no real or foreseeable risk that he would be seriously harmed or killed by his enemies upon his return to India. [95] The reasons in support of this conclusion are set out in paragraphs [86]-[93]

(3)  There is no evidence that the applicant had ever been threatened or attacked by the Hindu community in India, his assertion that he would be discriminated or harmed by the entire Hindus of India upon his return is speculative and too far-fetched. [96]

(4)  The risk of harm or ill-treatment by his enemies will be further reduced or negated by the availability of state protection and reasonable internal relocation. [97] The reasons in support of the conclusion are set out in paragraphs 99-105 and 107.

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 18 December 2025 for leave to apply for judicial review of the Board’s Decision.

11.The applicant has raised the reasons below to challenge the Board’s Decision.

(1)  Error of law – the Board has applied too strict the rule of evidence to treat minor or immaterial inconsistencies.

(2)  Failure to take relevant matters into account – failing to consider all factors and the continuing targeting of him after his departure.

(3)  Taking into account irrelevant matters – it relied on irrelevant and unreasonable and speculative consideration when assessing his credibility.

(4)  Irrational or perverse findings – its conclusions are irrational and unreasonable, in particular, by saying that police would intervene despite their connection with his enemies.

(5)  Failure to properly assess state protection – the Board did not consider his evidence that police would not intervene.

(6)  Failure to assess internal relocation – failing to consider his lack of support, resources, and ability to relocate safely.

(7)  Procedural unfairness – the Board failed to refer him to issues that it had to clarify with him before reaching its decisions.

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 that he was being detained and was not given sufficient time collect evidence from his country.

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 raised Grounds (1) to (4) and (7) to say that the Board was in error in assessing his credibility. Here credibility within the context of his case covers two areas, viz. his evidence on the facts of his claim, and his belief that his enemies had the intention to harm or kill him. The Board did not dispute the facts of his claim. The Board only disputed that his enemies had real intention to harm or kill him. The Board had given its reasons in support of its findings in paragraphs 86-93. The applicant may have a different perspective since he was involved in the incidents. The Board has taken a more objective view of the incidents. After all, he was not seriously injured throughout the incidents, which supports the Board’s view. I consider it is not appropriate for this Court to intervene with the Board’s findings on this issue.

16.Ground (5) refers to state protection. The Board had already considered the country of origin information before coming to its decisions on this issue. As a matter of fact, the applicant had not taken his complaints to the higher levels of Indian government for protection. This ground cannot sustain.

17.Ground (6) refers to internal relocation. The applicant’s reasons in support of this ground cannot sustain in view of the Board’s reasons in support of its finding on this issue.

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

DISPOSITION

19.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 13^th day of May 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