Sasidharan Rajesh Kumar and Others v. Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office

HCAL 1558/2025

[2026] HKCFI 3373

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST No. 1558 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 Applicant being absent in open court;

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

Leave for the Applicants to apply for Judicial Review be refused.

Observations for the Applicant:

THE APPLICATION

1.The 1^st applicant is the father, (“the father”), the 2^nd applicant is the mother of the 2^nd applicant, their daughter, aged 25. They are illegal immigrants. There is another older daughter who remains in Hong Kong, but she has withdrawn her application for non-refoulement protection.

2.The applicants jointly apply for leave to apply for judicial review of the Decision dated 12 June 2025 of the Torture Claims Appeal Board (“the Board’s Decision”).

3.The applicants did not ask for a hearing. I shall deal with their application on the papers.

The applicants

4.The applicants are nationals of India.

5.The applicants lodged a non-refoulement claim, on the basis that, if refouled, they will be harmed or killed by the father’s creditor because the father was unable to repay his loan.

6.Details of the facts are set out in the Board’s Decision. See hyperlink. https://legalref.judiciary.hk/doc/judg/html/vetted/other/en/2025/HCAL001558_2025_files/the_Board's_Decision.pdf

The Director’s Decision

7.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”).

8.By way of Notice of Decision dated 14 April 2025 (“the Director’s Decision”), the Director assessed the applicants’ claims jointly on all applicable grounds and dismissed their claims on all applicable risks because it was unsubstantiated.

The Board’s Decision

9.The applicants appealed the Director’s Decision to the Board. On 29 May 2025, the Board conducted an oral hearing for their appeals. They had given evidence and answered the Board’s questions.

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

(1)  On the whole, the applicants are not credible witnesses. The Board did not accept their evidence in relation to the conducts of the creditor and his underlings. [52] & [57]

(2)  The risk is low and localized. [60]

(3)  The problem is a private dispute with the creditor. [61]

(4)  The creditor did not attempt to oppress them or their relatives. [71] & [78]

(5)  They sought not to report the matter to police. [77]

(6)  There is no chance of harm to any of them. [79]

(7)  Internal relocation is viable. [117]

11.For the reasons above, the Board dismissed their appeal and confirmed the Director’s Decision.

Application for leave to apply for judicial review

12.The applicants filed Form 86 on 8 July 2025 for leave to apply for judicial review of the Board’s Decision.

13.In support of their application, the applicants have raised no specific reasons to challenge the Board’s Decision. They have attached a copy of the Board’s Decision to their joint affirmation.

DISCUSSION

14.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 applicants’ 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 CA, §40 and Nupur Mst v Director of Immigration [2018] HKCA 524, §14 (1).

15.The Court will bear in mind that the Board’s Decision should be examined with rigorous examination and anxious scrutiny.

16.The applicants fail to show that there is any realistic prospect of success in their proposed judicial review.

DISPOSITION

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

Dated the 10^th day of June 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