Case Document

100%

HCAL 1288/2026

[2026] HKCFI 5243

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST No. 1288 of 2026

BETWEEN

	Ram Arjun	Applicant
	and
	Torture Claims Appeal Board /	Putative
	Non-Refoulement Claims Petition Office	Respondent
	and
	Director of Immigration	Putative
		Intersted 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 oral submissions by the Applicant in open court;

Order by Deputy High Court Judge Andrew Li:

1. The Applicant’s Form 86 be amended to name only the Torture Claims Appeal Board as the putative respondent and only the Director of Immigration as the putative interested party; and

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

Observations for the Applicant:

INTRODUCTION

1.By a Form 86 filed on 16 July 2026 (“the Form 86”), the applicant applied for leave to apply for judicial review of a decision by the Torture Claims Appeal Board (“the Board”) dated 23 June 2026 (“the Board’s Decision”), which affirmed a decision by the Director of Immigration (“the Director”) dated 14 April 2026 in refusing the applicant’s non‑refoulement protection claim. He named the Board and the Director as the proposed respondents and interested parties.

2.I amended the Form 86 on my own motion to name only the Board as the putative respondent and only the Director as the putative interested party.

3.The applicant requested for a hearing and he attended the same.

BACKGROUND

4.The applicant is a national of India. He seeks non-refoulement protection on the basis that if he is refouled, he would be harmed or killed by his uncle and his son over a family land dispute. His personal background, the relevant facts and relevant procedural history have been sufficiently set out in the Board’s Decision, which can be accessed through a hyperlink[1]. I shall not repeat the same here.

DISCUSSION

5.In a judicial review, this court does not provide a further avenue of appeal. Though in non-refoulement case an enhanced standard in scrutinizing the decision of the Board is required given the seriousness of the issue at hand, this court should not usurp the role of the Board, which together with the Director are the primary decision-makers. This court will not intervene by way of judicial review unless there are errors of law or procedural unfairness or irrationality in the decision of the Board (Nupur Mst v Director of Immigration [2018] HKCA 524, [14(1)]). There must be a reasonably arguable claim with a realistic prospect of success before leave for judicial review will be granted (Peter Po Fun Chan v Winnie Cheung & Anor (2007) 10 HKCFAR 676).

6.At the hearing, the applicant did not add anything to what has already been stated in his application other than to say that his life is still in danger and that his father was attacked recently. In the 7-page handwritten affirmation filed in support of his application, the applicant cited some of the general rules under the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) Handbook, various articles under the international treaties and conventions like Article 3 of the Convention Against Torture 1984; Article 7 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights 1966; and Article 3 of the European Convention from Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedom 1950. The only specific grounds on which relief is sought can be found in his affirmation are:

(1)  The Director and the Board acted in a “procedurally unfair manner” in their decisions as he considers that the non-refoulement claims / torture claims are not subject to formal rule of evidence, which includes “the procedural operation” of the Board [p2];

(2)  In §47 of the Board’s Decision, the Board failed to appreciate the important role played by the deputy village head which the Board found as “low-level village official”. However, the applicant says “in reality it is far above that and carries much clout” as “He is a card-carrying member of the BJP (Bharatiya Junta Party) – who pays monthly levy to the party for its functioning and thus has weight within the party – who has been winning the elections with an outright majority and formed the government at the national level for as long as I can remember.” [p5]; and

(3)  The “perceived discrepancies” that may have arisen between his statement and at the hearing is not due to him “being not credible enough but due to the deficiencies in the assessment and vetting procedure.” [p6]

7.Looking at the Board’s Decision, the Board bore in mind the correct legal principles in respect of each of the four applicable grounds under the USM [55-62]. There is nothing to suggest that the Board has failed to take into account of any of the well-established principles laid down by the articles in the international treaties and conventions stated in the applicant’s affirmation.

8.Further, it is clear that the Board carefully took into consideration of the applicant’s case and evidence [5-24], including the evidence he gave before the Board at the hearing [25(i) to (xix)].

9.After thoroughly analysing and assessing the above [26-49], the Board came to the findings and conclusions that none of the grounds was made out [50-63]. The finding about the “low-level” village official at [47] which the applicant complains of was one of the many factual findings which the Board made to support its conclusion that the applicant’s evidence “contains many important inconsistencies, omissions, vague explanations, and unsupported claims” which “seriously weaken his credibility” [49]. Such fact-finding exercise is entirely within the power and jurisdiction of the Board which this court will not interfere unless it has committed any public law errors.

10.Having looked at the Board’s Decision carefully, I do not find there was anything unreasonable in the Wednesbury sense.

11.I also do not find the Board has adopted any improper or unfair procedures when assessing the explanations provided by the applicant. Nor did it in my view commit any “deficiencies in the assessment and vetting procedure” as alleged by the applicant.

12.Despite rigorous examination and anxious scrutiny, I could not find any errors of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the Board’s Decision. In my view, the intended challenge based on judicial review is not reasonably arguable and it has no realistic prospect of success.

CONCLUSION

13.For the above reasons, I am not satisfied that this court should intervene by way of judicial review. I therefore dismiss the application.

Dated the 18^th day of September 2026

(Cheung Ho Yat, Annson)
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 18/9/2026 Ram Arjun 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 18/9/2026 Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-Refoulement Claims Petition Office Putative Respondent’s ref. no.: USM 28479 Director of Immigration Putative Interested Party’s ref. no.: QA T/C 288/26 (formerly RBCZ 5000197/26) Department of Justice, Senior Assistant Law Officer (Civil Law) (Civil Litigation Unit 2)