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

HCAL 633/2023

[2026] HKCFI 5447

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST No. 633 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 the Applicant being absent 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 2 May 2023 (“Form 86”), the Applicant sought leave for judicial review of a decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-Refoulement Claims Petition Office (“the Board”) dated 3 April 2023 (“the Board’s Decision”). The Board’s Decision was made after an oral hearing on 11 July 2022 of the Applicant’s appeal/petition from the Director of Immigration (“DI”)’s first-tier decision dated 18 November 2021. A copy of the Board’s Decision can be seen by the following hyperlink[1].

2.The Applicant is an Indian national. His non-refoulement claim was based on an alleged risk of being harmed or killed by Anjali’s father, Prince Arora, because of his relationship with Anjali. Despite being born into an underprivileged Sikh family and married, he started a relationship with Anjali and had been going on secret dates. He alleged that Anjali’s father sent three to four men to hit him because of his relationship with Anjali. In fear of further attacks, he has not had any contact with Anjali since then and, after going abroad for some time, eventually came to Hong Kong in 2019.

3.The Board refused the petition/appeal and confirmed the DI’s decision. The Board was of the view that four years after the relationship ended, it was unlikely that Prince Arora would still seek to harm the Applicant. In any event, if he is at risk of harm should he return to India, he may be able to seek protection of the authorities. The Board found it doubtful whether Prince Arora has sufficient influence with the Police to interfere in any investigation.

4.Even if Police assistance is not forthcoming, the Board found that the Applicant could still have a reasonable internal relocation alternative in India. The Board concluded that the Applicant faced no genuine or personal risk of harm upon return, failing to establish any valid claim under persecution risk, torture risk, BOR 2 or BOR 3.

5.In the supporting affirmation of his Form 86, the Applicant has set out a few reasons on which relief is sought. They are summarized as follows. First, it was said the Board had failed to consider his claim and directly dismissed it. Secondly, the Board refused his documents as they were written in his mother language, and did not give him time to translate. Thirdly, the interpreter in the Board’s proceedings became angry if the Applicant did not understand. Fourthly, the interpreter asked him not to take too much time as he had another job.

6.Regarding the first ground, the Board did consider the Applicant’s claims thoroughly, as can be seen from the Board’s Decision.

7.As regards the remaining grounds, there was no elaboration on the alleged unfairness, e.g. what documents were intended to be submitted but refused, what were their relevance to the Applicant’s claim and what matters during the hearing were not understood by him. I am unable to find any reasonable arguability from these bare assertions without further elaboration or evidential support. The Applicant did not attend the leave hearing to elaborate.

8.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 TCAB’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).

9.I have considered the Board’s Decision vigorously. I am unable to detect any reasonable argument that the Board’s Decision was vitiated by public law errors. I therefore dismiss this leave application.

Dated the 24^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