Suman Acting As the Next Friend of Ravi Daksh v. Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office
|
HCAL 1372/2026 [2026] HKCFI 5245 IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST No. 1372 of 2026 BETWEEN
Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review NOTIFICATION of the Judge’s decision (Ord. 53 r. 3) Following;
Order by Deputy High Court Judge K.W. Lung:
Observations for the Applicant: THE APPLICATION 1.The 1st named is the mother (“the mother”) acting as the next friend of the 2nd named, the applicant, her son born in the year of 2025 (“the son”). The mother gave birth to the son in Hong Kong. They are illegal immigrants. 2.The applicant applies for leave to apply for judicial review of the Decision dated 24 July 2026 of the Torture Claims Appeal Board (“the Board’s Decision”). His application relies upon the facts of the mother’s claim, which had been dealt with in [2025] HKCFI 5161. This Court dismissed the joint application of the mother and her husband for leave to apply for judicial review of the Board’s Decision dated 30 April 2025. 3.The applicant did not request an oral hearing. 4.Pursuant to Order 20, rule 8 and Order 53, rule 3(6) of the Rules of the High Court, Form 86 is amended to the effect that the proposed respondent is the Board, the Director of Immigration is the interested party and the 1st name applicant is acting as the next friend of the applicant, a minor. The applicant 5.The applicant is a national of India. 6.The applicant lodged a non-refoulement claim, on the basis that, if refouled, the mother will be harmed or killed by both of his paternal and maternal parents because his parents’ marriage was a same sub-caste marriage. Further, the mother worried that the son will fall prey to child labour and be inflicted considerable physical and mental sufferings. 7.Details of the facts are set out in the Board’s Decision. See hyperlink. https://legalref.judiciary.hk/doc/judg/html/vetted/other/en/2026/HCAL001372_2026_files/the_Board's_Decision.pdf The Director’s Decision 8.The Director considered the applicant’s claim in relation to the following risks:
9.By way of the Notice of Decision dated 15 April 2026 (“Director’s Decision”), the Director dismissed the applicant’s claim on all applicable risks because it was unsubstantiated. The Board’s Decision 10.Acting by the mother, the applicant appealed the Director’s Decision to the Board. On 24 June 2026, the Board conducted an oral hearing for the appeal. The mother and the applicant’s father had given evidence and answered the Board’s questions [52]. 11.Having considered the evidence, the Board made the findings below.
12.For the reasons above, the Board dismissed the appeal and confirmed the Director’s Decision. Application for leave to apply for judicial review 13.The applicants filed Form 86 on 31 July 2026 for leave to apply for judicial review of the Board’s Decision. 14.In her affirmation, the mother said that she would appeal against the Director’s Decision as well. However, the Director’s Decision is superseded by the Board’s Decision. She raised no specific reason to challenge the Board’s Decision. She has attached a copy of the Board’s Decision to her affirmation. DISCUSSION 15.The role of this Court is supervisory, meaning that it ensures that the Board complied with the public law requirements in coming to the Board’s Decision on the applicant’s appeal. The Court will not usurp the fact-finding power vested in the Director and the Board. See TK v Michael C Jenkins Esq and Director of Immigration [2013] 1 HKC 526 CA, §40 and Nupur Mst v Director of Immigration [2018] HKCA 524, §14 (1). 16.The Court will bear in mind that the Board’s Decision should be examined with rigorous examination and anxious scrutiny. 17.As the mother’s claim has been dismissed by the Board and this Court has also dismissed her application for leave for judicial review of the Board’s Decision dated 30 April 2025, there is no factual basis in support of the application’s claim. The remaining consideration is whether there are child specific issues, which prevent the applicant from being refouled to India. 18.The Board had considered the mother’s concerns for the son, and in the Board’s Decision, decided that the son will not be subjected to any of the applicable risks or child labour if he returns to India with his parents. In my view, the Board’s decisions are reasonable and rational. There is no reason from the mother that this Court should interfere with the Board’s Decision. 19.The applicant therefore fails to show that there is any realistic prospect of success in the proposed judicial review. DISPOSITION 20.I refuse to grant leave to the applicant to apply for judicial review of the Board’s Decision. Accordingly, I dismiss the application. 21.I shall treat non-compliance with Order 80, rule 2 of the RHC in these proceedings as a mere irregularity without rendering the applicant’s application a nullity. Dated the 16th 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 |
Summaries and metadata are generated from the judgment. Report an error
Cases cited in this judgment