Ranjeet v. Torture Claims Appeal Board

HCAL 1721/2023

[2026] HKCFI 3668

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST NO. 1721 OF 2023

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 Bruno Chan:

The application for leave to apply for Judicial Review be dismissed.

Observations for the Applicant:

1.The Applicant is a 35-year-old national of India who entered Hong Kong illegally on 24 November 2015 and was arrested by police on the same day.  After he was referred to the Immigration Department for investigation, he raised a non-refoulement claim for protection on the basis that if he returned to India he would be harmed or killed by his cousin over their land dispute in his home village.  He was subsequently released on recognizance pending the determination of his claim.

2.The Applicant was born and raised in Village Kairi, Uttar Pradesh, India. After leaving school he worked as a farmer on the farmland in his home village which he inherited from his father, but the title documents of which had been deposited with his paternal uncle by his father as security for a loan which had not been repaid up to the time of his father’s death in 2000, and whereupon the Applicant as the eldest son stood to inherit the farmland from his father’s estate.

3.Soon his paternal uncle also passed away, whereupon his cousin inherited his uncle’s estate and took possession of the title documents of the farmland of the Applicant’s father, but when the Applicant’s mother in 2002 offered to repay his father’s loan so as to discharge the security and for the return of the title documents, the cousin refused, claiming that the value of the farmland had increased substantially that it should instead be transferred to him in satisfaction of the loan.

4.Soon the cousin came with his followers to the farmland to stop the Applicant and other members of his family from farming on the land, and threatened to harm them if they failed to heed his demand for the transfer of the farmland to him, and when his family refused, they then attacked the Applicant with wooden sticks causing him cuts and bruises all over his body.

5.After being beaten by his cousin and his followers on several occasions, the Applicant was afraid to work on the farmland anymore and therefore went to Haryana to work as a supervisor in some company.

6.In 2015 he returned to his home village and offered to pay more money to his cousin in settlement of his father’s debts and for the return of the farmland and its title documents, but his cousin still refused and instead together with his men again beat the Applicant with wooden sticks, and threatened to kill him if he persisted in seeking the return of the farmland or its title documents.

7.As a result the Applicant was advised by his mother to save himself by leaving the country, and so he departed India for Hong Kong, but after being refused entry twice by the Hong Kong Immigration Department, he instead went to China on 6 November 2015, and from there he later sneaked into Hong Kong, and upon his arrest by the police on the same day he then raised his non-refoulement claim for protection, for which he completed a Non-refoulement Claim Form (“NCF”) on 11 October 2018 and attended screening interview before the Immigration Department with legal representation.

8.By a Notice of Decision dated 25 October 2018 the Director of Immigration (“Director”) rejected the Applicant’s claim on all the applicable grounds including risk of torture under Part VIIC of the Immigration Ordinance, Cap 115 (“Torture Risk”), risk of his absolute or non-derogable rights under the Hong Kong Bill of Rights Ordinance, Cap 383 (“HKBOR”) being violated including right to life under Article 2 (“BOR 2 Risk”), risk of torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment under Article 3 of HKBOR (“BOR 3 Risk”), and risk of persecution with reference to the non-refoulement principle under Article 33 of the 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees (“Persecution Risk”).

9.In his decision the Director took into account all the relevant circumstances of the Applicant’s claim and assessed the level of risk of harm from his cousin and followers upon his return to India as low due to the low intensity and frequency of past ill-treatment from them, that there is no evidence of any real intention of his cousin to seriously harm or kill him other than to deter him from claiming back the farmland or its title documents, that in any event it was a private land dispute between just the 2 of them and within their 2 families only without any official involvement that state or police protection would be available to the Applicant if resorted to, and that reliable and objective Country of Origin Information (“COI”) shows that reasonable internal relocation alternatives are available in India with a large population of 1.2 billion people spread across a vast territory of more than 3.2 million square kilometers that it would not be unduly harsh for the Applicant as an able-bodied adult with working experience to move to other areas of the country away from his home district in large cities such as Mumbai where it would be difficult if not impossible for his cousin to locate him.

10.On 2 November 2018 the Applicant lodged an appeal to the Torture Claims Appeal Board (“Board”) against the Director’s decision, and for which he attended an oral hearing on 4 February 2021 before the Board during which he gave evidence and answered questions raised of his claim by the Adjudicator for the Board.  On 20 September 2023 his appeal was dismissed by the Board which also confirmed the Director’s decision.

11.In its decision[1] the Board accepted the Applicant’s claim of the land dispute between his family and the family of his paternal uncle and the conflicts between him and his cousin but found no reliable evidence of any real intention of his cousin to seriously harm or kill him, and that in any event it was a private land dispute between him and his cousin without any official involvement that state or police protection would be available to the Applicant upon his return to India as well as reasonable internal relocation alternatives for him to move safely to other parts of the country away from his home district without any risk of being located by his cousin that his claim for non-refoulement protection failed on all applicable grounds.

12.On 27 September 2023 the Applicant filed his Form 86 for leave to apply for judicial review of the Board’s decision, and in his supporting affirmation of the same date he put forward the following grounds for his intended challenge:

(1)  That the Adjudicator did not consider his claim at all and just dismissed it directly without taking any time to think about his life;

(2)  That the Adjudicator unreasonably refused to allow him to submit his supporting documents without translation and also failed to give him time to arrange for their translations;

(3)  That the interpreter was impatient and unhelpful to him during his hearing before the Board.

13.All these are however just some bare and vague assertions of the Applicant without any necessary or relevant particulars or specifics or elaborations as to how they apply to his case or how the Board or the Adjudicator had erred in the decision, or in what way was the decision unfair or unreasonable or that the Adjudicator had acted procedurally unfair or irrational, or what documents that the Adjudicator had refused to allow him to submit without translations, or in what way was the interpreter impatient or unhelpful to him during the appeal hearing.  As such, and as none of these assertions were properly elaborated or presented with any relevant particulars or specifics by the Applicant, I do not find any of them reasonably arguable for his intended challenge.

14.As has been repeatedly emphasized by the Court of Appeal, judicial review does not operate as a rehearing of a non-refoulement claim when the proper occasion for the Applicant to present and articulate his claim is in the screening process and interview before the Immigration Department and in the process before the Board where the evaluation of the risk of harm is primarily a matter for the Director and the Board as they are entitled to make such evaluation based on the evidence available to them that the court will not usurp their role as primary decision makers in the absence of any legal error or procedural unfairness or irrationality in their decisions being clearly and properly identified by the Applicant, as judicial review is not an avenue for revisiting the assessment by them in the hope that the court may consider the matter afresh: Re Lakhwinder Singh [2018] HKCA 246; Re Daljit Singh [2018] HKCA 328; Re Mudannayakalage Chaminda Pushpa Kumara [2018] HKCA 400; and Nupur Mst v Director of Immigration [2018] HKCA 524.

15.In the Applicant’s case, the Board rejected his claim for the thorough and detailed analysis and reasoning set out in its decision with the benefit of hearing him in his oral evidence and his answers to questions raised of his claim, and in the absence of any error of law or procedural unfairness in his process before the Board or in its decision being clearly and properly identified by the Applicant, I do not find any reasonably arguable basis to challenge the finding of the Board.

16.Furthermore, the fact is that it has also been established by both the Director and the Board in their respective decisions that the risk of harm in the Applicant’s claim if real is a localized one and that it is not unreasonable or unsafe for him to relocate to other part of India, there is simply no justification to afford him with non-refoulement protection in Hong Kong: see TK v Jenkins & Anor [2013] 1 HKC 526.

17.In the premises, and having considered the decisions of both the Director and the Board with rigorous examination and anxious scrutiny, I do not find any error of law or procedural unfairness in either of them, nor any failure on their part to apply high standards of fairness in their consideration and assessment of the Applicant’s claim.

18.Moreover, the Applicant has recently on 24 March 2026 in writing requested to withdraw his application as his issue in his home country has been resolved that it is now safe for him to return to India.

19.As I am for the given reasons not satisfied that there is any prospect of success in the Applicant’s intended application for judicial review, and in view of his latest confirmation that it is safe for him to return to his home country, I accordingly dismiss his leave application.

Dated the 2^nd day of July 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