Case Document

100%

HCAL 147/2026

[2026] HKCFI 4277

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST NO 147 OF 2026

BETWEEN
	Singh Gurpal	Applicant
	and
	Torture Claims Appeal Board	Putative
		Respondent
	and
	Director of Immigration	Putative
		Interested Party

Application for leave to apply for judicial review

NOTIFICATION of the Judge’s decision (Order 53, rule 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 Michael WONG:

1. On this court’s own motion, “Director of Immigration” be added as the putative interested party.

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

Observations for the applicant:

The Leave Application

1.By way of Form 86 dated 12 January 2026 and filed on 13 January 2026, the applicant applied for leave to apply for judicial review (“the Leave Application”) in respect of the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board (“the Board”) dated 31 December 2025 (“the Board’s Decision”). The Board’s Decision can be viewed in the following hyperlink:-

https://legalref.judiciary.hk/doc/judg/html/vetted/other/en/2026/HCAL000147_2026_files/the_Board's_Decision.pdf

2.The Board found that the applicant’s claims for non-refoulement protection failed on all the applicable grounds under the Unified Screening Mechanism (“the USM”). Accordingly, the Board dismissed the applicant’s appeal/petition against the decision of the Director of Immigration (“the Director)” dated 19 November 2025 (“the Director’s Decision”) and affirmed the same, which rejected his non-refoulement claim.

Amendment

3.The applicant did not name any putative interested party in Form 86, when the Director should be so named.

4.Thus, this court makes an order on its own motion to add “Director of Immigration” as the putative interested party.

The applicant’s case

5.It is not necessary for this court to repeat the details of the applicant’s case here as the same were set out in the Board’s Decision, which can be viewed in the hyperlink above.

6.In sum, the applicant claimed for non-refoulement protection because if refouled to India, he would be ill-treated or killed by his uncle Gopal Singh (“the Uncle”) due to a land dispute.

Oral hearing

7.The applicant requested for an oral hearing of the Leave Application and his case was heard on 14 July 2026.

8.When this court asked the applicant to elaborate on the grounds of his intended judicial review, which were stated in his supporting affirmation dated 12 January 2026, he merely replied that he had some issues about the land with his uncle, he could not go back and that was why he wanted to stay in Hong Kong.

Grounds for judicial review

9.The applicant is required to identify clearly the grounds for the intended judicial review (see Ho Loy & Another v Director of Environmental Protection, HCAL 21 of 2015, dated 22.12.2016).

10.In paragraphs 5(a) to (c) of the applicant’s affirmation, the applicant mentioned that:-

(1)  He was a genuine claimant who faced all these dangerous problems, harassment and torture in his country;

(2)  The Director reached the wrong decision in assessing his claim; and

(3)  If he did not run away, he certainly would have been killed by his enemies. His problems were getting more and more life-threatening day after day.

11.As aforesaid, the applicant did not elaborate on any of the grounds stated in the said affirmation at the oral hearing, and only reiterated the factual background of his non-refoulement claim, namely that he had some issues about the land with his uncle, he could not go back and that was why he wanted to stay in Hong Kong.

Discussion

12.First of all, the applicant’s danger in his own country had been duly assessed but rejected by the Board. If he intends to challenge the Board’s finding of facts, it is not permissible in an application for judicial review. Thus, Grounds (1) and (3) as summarised above cannot be valid grounds to challenge the Board’s Decision.

13.Ground (2) as summarised above was advanced against the Director only. As the Leave Application concerns only the Board’s Decision, which had in fact superseded the Director’s Decision (see Re Moshsin Ali [2018] HKCA 549), this paragraph can simply be ignored.

14.Thus, none of the grounds that were contained in the applicant’s affirmation dated 12 January 2026 could establish any valid ground to challenge the Board’s Decision.

15.The role of the court in judicial review is not to re-assess the non-refoulement claims afresh. The primary decision-makers in a claim for non-refoulement are the Director and the Board. They alone assess the evidence and find facts including those relating to the matters allegedly giving rise to the non-refoulement claim, risk of harm, availability of state protection and viability of internal relocation. The court will scrutinize the Board’s decision and intervene by way of judicial review only for errors of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality (see Nupur Mst v Director of Immigration [2018] HKCA 524).

16.Thus, this court will examine and scrutinize the Board’s Decision for any errors of law, procedural unfairness and irrationality, despite the lack of any valid ground being advanced by the applicant for the intended judicial review.

17.In assessing the appeal by the applicant, the Board held an oral hearing on 19 December 2025 and the applicant was present. Thus, the applicant was given the opportunity to present his case to the Board.

18.As can be seen from the Board’s Decision, the Board had laid out its analysis of the applicant’s claims and found that the applicant had not made out a case for non-refoulement protection on any of the applicable grounds under the USM.

19.In gist, the Board found that the applicant’s evidence was undermined by significant inconsistencies in his timeline, contradictions between his Non-refoulement Claim Form (“NCF”) and hearing testimony, and his failure to provide supporting documentation for key aspects of his claim. The applicant’s omission in his NCF of the Uncle’s demand to transfer the land to his father, his speculative valuation of the land, his inaction with the police collectively cast doubt on the credibility of his claims.

20.Despite its findings and conclusions as summarised above, the Board explicitly stated that even if it accepted the applicant’s evidence, it would still find the applicant’s claim or appeal/petition failed.

21.The Board considered that the applicant’s claimed dispute with the Uncle to be a localized family conflict. There was no evidence of state instigation or state acquiescence of any form in the applicant’s case. His fear of the Uncle was not on account of a Convention reason. There was no substantiated evidence that he faced a real or imminent risk of serious harm or ill-treatment, particularly given the availability of relocation options and the lack of any broader or systemic threat. Moreover, the risk of harm or ill-treatment by the Uncle, if any, would be further reduced or negated by the availability of state protection and reasonable internal relocation.

22.The applicant had already demonstrated an ability to relocate within India by staying at his maternal grandparents’ home and later in a hotel in Delhi. There was no evidence to suggest that the Uncle’s influence extended beyond his local village, and the applicant had not demonstrated why internal relocation to another part of India would not be a viable option for his safety.

23.Thus, the Board concluded that the applicant did not face a real risk of being subjected to any of the proscribed forms of harm under the USM if he was refouled to India.

24.The finding of facts, including assessment of evidence, country of origin information and risk of harm, was solely within the ambit of the Board. The Board was entitled to make its own decision. This court finds nothing wrong or unreasonable in the way the Board reached its conclusion.

25.Having rigorously examined the Board’s Decision and the evidence with anxious scrutiny, this court is satisfied that the Board had correctly set out the law and key legal principles relating to the applicable grounds under the USM, the burden of proof and the standard of proof. The Board also correctly identified the issues and observed a very high standard of fairness. This court could detect no errors of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the Board’s Decision. The Board’s Decision does satisfy the enhanced Wednesbury test, ie it is not Wednesbury unreasonable or irrational for the Board to reach its decision.

26.As held by the Court of Final Appeal in Po Fun Chan v Winnie Cheung (2007) 10 HKCFAR 676, for the court to grant leave to apply for judicial review, the claim has to be a reasonably arguable claim which enjoys realistic prospects of success. It is the view of this court that the applicant has failed to establish such a claim and hence leave must be refused.

Conclusion

27.For reasons aforesaid, the Leave Application is dismissed.

Dated the 29^th day of July 2026

( Gladys LEE )
for Registrar, High Court

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

Notes for the applicant: If leave has been granted, the applicant or the applicant’s solicitors must:
a) serve on the respondent and such interested parties as may be directed by the Court the order granting leave and any directions given within 14 days after the leave was granted (Order 53, rule 4A); b) issue the originating summons within 14 days after the grant of leave and serve it in accordance with Order 53, rule 5; and c) supply to every other party copies of every affidavit which the applicant proposes to use at the hearing, including the affidavit in support of the application for leave (Order 53, rule 6(5)).		Sent/Handed to the applicant/the applicant’s solicitors on: 29/07/2026 Applicant’s ref. no: Nil		Sent/Handed to the putative respondent / the putative respondent’s solicitors / such putative interested parties as may be directed by the Court / the putative interested parties’ solicitors on: 29/07/2026 Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office Putative respondent’s ref. no.: USM 27640 Director of Immigration Putative interested party’s ref. no.: QA T/C 2023/25 (formerly RBCZ 5001909/25) Department of Justice, Senior Assistant Law Officer (Civil Law) (Civil Litigation Unit 2)