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

HCAL 508/2023

[2026] HKCFI 5152

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST No 508 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 oral submissions by the Applicant in open court;

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

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

Observations for the Applicant:

1.By a Form 86 filed on 30 March 2023 (“Form 86”), the Applicant sought leave for judicial review of a decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-Refoulement Claims Petition Office (“Board”) dated 19 January 2023 (“the Board’s Decision”). The Board’s Decision was made after an oral hearing on 17 October 2022 of the Applicant’s appeal/petition from the Director of Immigration (“DI”)’s first-tier decision dated 25 July 2018. A copy of the Board’s Decision can be seen by the following hyperlink[1].

2.The Applicant is an Indian national. He claimed to be involved with the Indian National Congress (“INC”), though he did not hold a position in it, and to have a relationship with a young woman named Preety, whose family members are associated with the Shiromani Akali Dal (“SAD”) and Bharatiya Janata Party (“BJP”). His non-refoulement claim was based on an alleged risk of being killed by Preety’s relatives and other persons as an “honour killing” due to their inter-caste relationship and his membership of the INC.

3.After an oral hearing, the Board was not convinced that the Applicant is a truthful or credible witness, and considered it evident that he has manufactured the totality of his claims regarding Preety and threats and harm from her family members. Consequently, the Board considered the Applicant’s risk not falling within the meaning of torture, that there was nothing to show a risk of violation of the rights under Article 2 of the Hong Kong Bill of Rights (“BOR2”) or Article 3 of the Hong Kong Bill of Rights (“BOR3”), and that the claim did not fall within a Refugees Convention ground for persecution risk to become applicable.

4.The Applicant has put forward no ground of judicial review. 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).

5.I have reviewed the Board’s Decision vigorously, but do not find the proposed judicial review reasonably arguable. The leave application is thus dismissed.

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