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

HCAL 553/2023

[2026] HKCFI 5151

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST No 553 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:

1.  The Form 86 be amended to name only the Board as the putative respondent and the Director of Immigration as 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 6 April 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 30 March 2023 (“the Board’s Decision”). The Board’s Decision was made after an oral hearing on 31 October 2022 of the Applicant’s appeal/petition from the Director of Immigration (“DI”)’s first-tier decision dated 26 October 2018. A copy of the Board’s Decision can be seen by the following hyperlink[1].

2.According to the Board’s Decision, the non-refoulement claim of the Applicant, an Indian national, was based on a dispute between him and his former girlfriend’s family members disapproving of their relationship. It was also said that the girlfriend’s father is very influential and is a member of the Shiromani Akali Dal (“SAD”) with a close affiliation to its core members. After an oral hearing, the Board came to the finding that the Applicant is not a credible witness as his accounts in his claim form and at the hearing were riddled with inconsistencies, contradictions, and improbabilities. Consequently, the Board found no real risk of ill-treatment under the applicable grounds, and dismissed the Applicant’s appeal/petition against DI’s first tier decision. It was also mentioned in passing that the Applicant had a reasonable internal relocation alternative in India.

3.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).

4.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