Baljit Singh v. Torture Claims Appeal Board

HCAL 2628/2024

[2026] HKCFI 3993

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST NO 2628 OF 2024

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 / the Applicant being absent in open court;

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 31-year-old national of India who entered Hong Kong illegally on 22 August 2023 and was arrested by police on 23 August 2023. 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 paternal uncle over their personal disputes in their home village. He was subsequently released on recognizance pending the determination of his claim.

2.The Applicant was born and raised in Village Chheharta Sahib, Amritsar, Punjab, India. After leaving school he worked in the factory, got married and raised a family with a son in his home district, and followed his uncle’s footstep to support the political party Shiromani Akali Dal (“SAD”) without holding any official post in the party.

3.However, in late 2022 after discovering that his uncle and other SAD members were involved in illegal activities including dealing in drugs and land occupations by force in his home village, the Applicant raised his complaints to the party leaders in his home village and threatened to quit his support, his uncle became furious and threatened him not to get involved, and after being beaten by men sent by his uncle on several occasions to stop his complaints, the Applicant became fearful for his safety and fled to Delhi to hide in some Sikh Temple.

4.However, in early 2023 he was located by men sent by his uncle who attacked him with wooden sticks, but he managed to make his escape without serious injuries, but as he felt that it was no longer safe to remain in India, he therefore departed on 11 May 2023 for China, and from there he later sneaked into Hong Kong, and upon his arrest by the police he then raised his non-refoulement claim for protection, for which he completed a Non-refoulement Claim Form (“NCF”) on 13 November 2023 and attended screening interview before the Immigration Department with legal representation from the Duty Lawyer Service (“DLS”).             

5.By a Notice of Decision dated 16 January 2024 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”).

6.In his decision the Director took into account of all the relevant circumstances of the Applicant’s claim and found no substantial grounds for believing that there will be any real and substantial risk of him being harmed or killed by his uncle and followers upon his return to India due to the low intensity and frequency of past ill-treatment from them, that there is no evidence of any real intention of his uncle to seriously harm or kill him other than just angry words and empty threats, that in any event it was a private and personal dispute between him and his uncle 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”) show that reasonable internal relocation alternatives are available in India with a large population of 1.3 billion people spread across a vast territory of more than 2.9 million square kilometers that it would not be unduly harsh for the Applicant as an able-bodied young adult with working experience to move to other areas of the country away from his home district in large cities such as Mumbai or Delhi where it would be difficult if not impossible for his uncle to locate him.

7.On 17 January 2024 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 16 July 2024 before the Board during which he gave evidence and answered questions raised of his claim by the Adjudicator for the Board. On 12 December 2024 his appeal was dismissed by the Board which also confirmed the Director’s decision.

8.In its decision[1] the Board found no reliable evidence of any real intention of his uncle and followers to seriously harm or kill him other than to deter him from raising any further complaints against his uncle, and that in any event it was a private dispute between him and his uncle only and within their family without any official involvement that state or police protection would be available to the Applicant upon his return to India that his claim for non-refoulement protection failed on all applicable grounds. 

9.On 27 December 2024 the Applicant filed his Form 86 for leave to apply for judicial review of the Board’s decision, but no ground for seeking relief was given in his Form or his supporting affirmation of the same date in which he just asserted that he does not agree with the decision but without putting forth any proper ground for his intended challenge. As such, and in the absence of any error of law or irrationality 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 for his intended challenge of the Board’s decision.

10.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.

11.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.

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

13.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.

14.Moreover, the Applicant has recently filed an affirmation requesting to withdraw his application as he has already compromised with his enemy that he now wants to return to his home country.

15.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 of no more problem for him to return to his home country, I accordingly dismiss his leave application.

Dated the 16^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