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

HCAL 400/2023

[2026] HKCFI 3748

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST No 400 of 2023

Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review

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

Following:

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

Order by Deputy High Court Judge Levy:

The applicant’s application for leave to apply for judicial review be dismissed.

Observations for the Applicant:

Background

1.By a “Notice of application for leave to apply for judicial review” in the prescribed Form 86 filed on 16 March 2023, the applicant applied for leave to apply for judicial review (“Leave Application”). The intended judicial review was against the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board / the Non-Refoulement Claims Petition Office (“Board”) dated 8 March 2023 (“Board’s Decision”) dismissing the applicant’s appeal against a decision of the Director of Immigration (“Director”) dated 30 December 2021 rejecting the applicant’s non-refoulement claim based on all applicable grounds[1]. The Board’s Decision is set out in the following hyperlink: -

https://legalref.judiciary.hk/doc/judg/html/vetted/other/en/2023/HCAL000400_2023_files/the_Board's_Decision.pdf

2.The basis of the applicant’s claim was that, if refouled to India, he would be harmed or killed by his village head whose son died several days after a fight with the applicant when the former came to force the applicant out of his family’s farmland. The reasoning and findings were set out in detail in the Board’s Decision and it is not necessary for me to repeat them. Unless otherwise specified, I shall also adopt the Board’s abbreviations and descriptions stated in the Board’s Decision.

3.The applicant has requested for an oral hearing. On 13 April 2026, the applicant filed an affirmation for the withdrawal of the Leave Application, stating that he wanted to go back to his country. On 13 May 2026, the Removal Assessment and Litigation (Removal and Deportation) Section (1) of the Immigration Department separately faxed a letter to the court, informing the court that the applicant would like to withdraw his judicial review application. Enclosed with the said letter was the applicant’s signed memo in his native language as well as in English dated 17 April 2026. In the memo, the applicant stated that he would like to withdraw the Leave Application as his issues in his home country had been resolved and it was safe for him to return home. In the circumstances, this court will dispose of the Leave Application on paper.

Discussion

4.The leave application operates as a “filtering” process. Hence, there is no requirement or expectation to give elaborate reasons for my decision.[2] It is therefore sufficient to state my observations after considering the Board’s Decision and the applicant’s materials adduced.

5.In a proper Form 86, an applicant is required to identify the grounds of judicial review clearly and succinctly[3], and further to make full and frank disclosure of all material facts to be verified by an affidavit. The applicant’s Form 86 contained no such grounds. In the supporting affirmation, the grounds the applicant provided were all related to the Director’s Decision and did not concern with the Board’s Decision.

6.As the Courts have repeatedly stated, a finding of fact is exclusively within the realm of the Board, which a court in a judicial review will not interfere with unless such finding involved an error of law, procedural unfairness, or irrationality.[4] In the present case, although the Board accepted the applicant’s evidence regarding the land dispute, it found that the issue had since fallen away as the family had received compensation for the government resumption of land. Regarding the death of the son of the village head, the Board found that the applicant would not be subjected to any criminal prosecution as the village head did not report the fighting incident leading to the subsequent death of the son. Since the Board did not accept applicant’s evidence about the influence of the village head, which coupled with the Board’s finding of the reasonable viability of the internal relocation, the Board found that the applicant would not be subjected to risk of harm if refouled. These are findings of fact, which the court in a judicial review will not interfere with subject to there being any public law errors.

7.Bearing in mind the enhanced standard that should be adopted in scrutinizing the decision of the Board, this court is satisfied that the Board correctly applied the law relating to all the grounds and observed a very high standard of fairness. The grounds the applicant stated in the supporting affirmation do not concern the Board’s Decision at all. Hence, the applicant has not shown any errors of law or procedural unfairness or irrationality in the Board’s Decision. The applicant’s intended challenge to the Board’s Decision is not reasonably arguable with any realistic prospects of success such that would enable this court to grant leave[5].

Withdrawal application

8.Apart from the application to withdraw the Leave Application referred to above, there is nothing outstanding in this action. In the circumstances, I make an order to dismiss the Leave Application, and hereby order the dismissal of the Leave Application: see Re Manik Md Mahamudun Nabi [2022] HKCA 471; Ngo Xuan Tuyen v Torture Claims Appeal Board [2024] HKCA 1140.

Order

9.The applicant’s application for leave to apply for judicial review be dismissed.

Dated the 10^th 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