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

HCAL 65/2026

[2026] HKCFI 4599

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST No. 65 of 2026

BETWEEN

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:

Introduction

1.By a “Notice of application to apply for leave for judicial review” in the prescribed Form 86 filed on 7 January 2026, 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 30 December 2025 (“Board’s Decision”) dismissing the applicant's appeal against the Director of Immigration (“Director”) dated 27 November 2025 rejecting the applicant's non-refoulement claim on all applicable grounds[1]. The Board’s Decision can be viewed at the following hyperlink: -

https://legalref.judiciary.hk/doc/judg/html/vetted/other/en/2026/HCAL000065_2026_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 HK and AK, the father and son, after the applicant refused to abandon his Sikh faith and adopted their Hindu religion. The Board’s 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.In the Form 86, the applicant only requested for a hearing if his Leave Application was not granted. In the circumstances, since the applicant has not requested for a hearing of the Leave Application, the court will determine the Leave Application without a hearing: see O.53, r.3 (3) of the Rules of the High Court.

Discussion

4.A leave application operates as a ‘filtering’ process. Hence, there is no requirement or expectation to give elaborate reasons for my decision. 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, and further to make full and frank disclosure of all material facts to be verified by an affidavit. In the Form 86, the applicant averred that the Board’s Decision was unlawful, irrational and was procedurally unfair. He further raised 6 grounds in support of the Leave Application, namely, the Board had (i) misapplied the standard of proof; (ii) failed to conduct a balanced and holistic assessment of the Country-of-Origin Information; (iii) made adverse credibility findings irrationally and disproportionately; (iv) misapplied the legal test concerning harm by non-state actors; (v) failed to assess the applicant’s risk cumulatively; and (vi) failed to give adequate and intelligible reasons. The supporting affirmation contained no grounds.

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. In the present case, the Board found that due to the applicant’s very limited knowledge of the Sikh religion which he claimed to have practised since birth, the Board rejected that he was a Sikh. The Board further found that HK and AK would not have targeted the applicant when he was only an ordinary Sikh in his community. Due to the glaring contradictions of the applicant’s account of events, the Board found that the applicant’s alleged attacks by the Hindus incredible. Even if the Board were to accept his account, it found that the past ill-treatment did not meet the requisite level of severity. It found that the applicant would not be subjected to any risks of harm if refouled. It further found that state protection and internal relocation would be reasonably available. The Board therefore dismissed the applicant’s appeal. 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 Board’s Decision, this court is satisfied that the Board correctly applied the law relating to all the grounds and observed a high standard of fairness. The number of assertions the applicant made in his Form 86 were general and vague, and did not condescend to particulars. 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 realistic prospects of success such that would enable this court to grant leave.

Order

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

Dated the 21^st day of August 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