Om Prakash v. Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office

Case No.HCAL 745/2023[2026] HKCFI 5275

Court

High Court CFI

Date17 Sep 2026

Judge—

Case Document

100%

HCAL 745/2023

[2026] HKCFI 5275

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST No 745 of 2023

BETWEEN

	OM Prakash	Applicant
	and
	Torture Claims Appeal Board /	Putative
	Non-Refoulement Claims Petition Office	Respondent
	and
	Director of Immigration	Putative
		Interested Party

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. Leave to withdraw the application for leave to apply for judicial review be granted;

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

Observations for the Applicant:

1.By a Form 86 filed on 17 May 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 12 May 2023 (“the Board’s Decision”), which was made pursuant to a petition/appeal from the decision of the Director of Immigration (“DI”) dated 30 May 2022.

2.The Applicant attended the hearing of this leave application on 30 June 2026 and made oral submissions. Later, on 2 September 2026, the Court received a letter from the DI, in which it was said (a) the Applicant had expressed in an earlier letter that he would like to withdraw his judicial review application as he wanted to return to his home country; (b) removal proceedings of the Applicant would be resumed as soon as practicable. The Applicant’s letter was attached to DI’s letter.

3.The Applicant has not filed any court document to formally seek leave to withdraw this leave application. In view of the letter from the DI, I tend to accept that the Applicant has decided to withdraw this leave application on his own volition and free will. That said, out of abundance of caution, I will still consider the merits of the leave application, especially because I have already heard from the Applicant.

4.According to the Board’s Decision, the non-refoulement claim of the Applicant, an Indian, was based on his marriage with his wife who belongs to a different caste. The Board, after a hearing, came to the finding that the Applicant’s factual account was not credible. Moreover, the Board found no reliable evidence that the Applicant had been subject to any real risk of ill-treatment under any applicable grounds; his appeal/petition against DI’s first tier decision was thus dismissed.

5.The Applicant set out a few grounds of judicial review in his supporting affirmation of the Form 86. However, during his oral submissions on 30 June 2026, he abandoned most of them. For example, on paper, he complained about the translator’s refusal to translate certain documents written in his language during the Board’s proceedings, resulting in the Board’s refusal to accept the documents. But during his oral submissions to this Court, he said he was never aware of the fact that he had complained about any translator in the court documents. He specifically said he just adopted the same “story” he previously set out and wanted more time in Hong Kong. From what I observed during the court hearing, the Applicant plainly did not understand the document he has filed with the Court.

6.Other grounds set out by him are also dismissed for want of particulars and substantiation. This Court cannot accept bare assertion of procedural unfairness without any evidential support; the Applicant’s performance during the court hearing reinforced my view that none of the grounds specified in the affirmation was seriously pursued.

7.I have considered the Board’s Decision vigorously, but I am unable to detect any reasonable argument that the decision was tainted by any illegality, irrationality or procedural impropriety. In my view, the Board has conducted an anxious scrutiny of the facts of the case, with an oral hearing, and assessed intensely its factual issues. The application for leave to apply for leave is thus dismissed.

Dated the 17^th day of September 2026

(Wilinda YIU)
for Registrar, High Court

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

Notes for the Applicant: If leave has been granted, the Applicant or the Applicant’s solicitors must:
a) serve on the respondent and such interested parties as may be directed by the Court the order granting leave and any directions given within 14 days after the leave was granted (Order 53, rule 4A); b) issue the originating summons within 14 days after the grant of leave and serve it in accordance with Order 53, rule 5; and c) supply to every other party copies of every affidavit which the Applicant proposes to use at the hearing, including the affidavit in support of the application for leave (Order 53, rule 6(5)).		Sent to the Applicant on 17^th September 2026 OM Prakash Applicant’s ref. no.: Nil.		Sent to the Putative Respondent / the Putative Respondent’s solicitors / such Putative Interested Parties as may be directed by the Court / the Putative Interested Parties’ solicitors on 17^th September 2026 Torture Claims Appeal Board/ Non-Refoulement Claims Petition Office Putative Respondent’s ref. no.: USM 20428 Director of Immigration Putative Interested Party’s ref. no.: QA T/C 2890/21 (formerly RBCZ 5000082/21) Department of Justice, Senior Assistant Law Officer (Civil Law) (Civil Litigation Unit 2)

Form CALL-1

Summaries and metadata are generated from the judgment. Report an error