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

HCAL 293/2023

[2026] HKCFI 5154

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST No 293 of 2023

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 the Applicant’s submissions in open court;

Order by Deputy High Court Judge (Non-Refoulement Claims) Lewis Law:

1.  The Form 86 be amended to name the Director of Immigration (instead of the Board) as a putative interested party; and

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

Observations for the Applicant:

1.By a Form 86 filed on 27 February 2023, the Applicant sought leave for judicial review of the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-Refoulement Claims Petition Office (“the Board”) dated 13 January 2023 (“the Board’s Decision”), which was made after a hearing on 14 October 2022 of a petition/appeal from the decision of the Director of Immigration (“DI”) dated 29 September 2021. A copy of the Board’s Decision can be seen by the following hyperlink[1].

2.The Applicant is an Indian national; his non-refoulement claim was based on an alleged risk of harm from Karnail Singh, the former village council head who has influential connections. The Applicant alleged that if he returns to India, he will be harmed or even killed by Karnail because Karnail was angry about the loss of his job caused by a letter of complaint co-signed by the Applicant.

3.The Board refused the petition/appeal and confirmed the DI’s decision after finding that the Applicant’s account was not entirely credible or truthful. The Board was willing to accept some aspects of his claims, including Karnail’s corruption, the Applicant’s involvement in the complaints process that led to his dismissal, and the assault on one occasion in the village, given the broad consistency presented by the Applicant’s account. Nevertheless, the Applicant was unable to provide plausible explanations or convincing evidence of the subsequent alleged assaults. Additionally, the Applicant failed to explain why he appeared to be singled out among the ones involved in the complaint against Karnail. Consequently, the Board concluded that the Applicant faced no genuine or personal risk of harm upon return, failing to establish any valid claim under persecution risk, torture risk or Articles 2 or 3 of the Hong Kong Bill of Rights (“BOR2” and “BOR3” respectively).

4.In his Form 86, the Applicant has set out a few grounds on which relief is sought. They are summarized as follows. First, the Board failed to meet “greater care and duty” owed to a self-represented claimant. Secondly, the Board failed to consider the risk of violation of BOR2. Thirdly, the Board’s Decision was procedurally unfair, irrational, the product of “unlawful fettering of discretion” and without regard of the “life and limb in jeopardy” principle, etc.

5.Regarding the first ground, the Applicant did not particularize the duty owed by the Board to him and how it was breached. I am not able to find any indication that the Board had failed to perform its duty in an appropriate manner.

6.The Board did assess the Applicant’s right under BOR2. The second ground is obviously inapplicable.

7.As to the third ground, there was no elaboration as to how they applied to the case and I find no substance in them. I do not intend to deal with each of those baseless assertions.

8.It has been reiterated time and again that the primary responsibility for the factual assessment of whether any risk of ill-treatment exists lies with the Board. In the absence of any errors of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality, the Court would not reopen the Board’s findings or make a determination on the case afresh. The role of the Court in a judicial review is not to provide a further avenue of appeal (see Re Lakhwinder Singh [2018] HKCA 246).

9.I have considered the Board’s Decision vigorously. I am unable to detect any reasonable argument that the Board’s Decision was vitiated by public law errors. I therefore dismiss this leave application.

Dated the 10^th day of September 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