Case Document

100%

HCAL 191/2026

[2026] HKCFI 5996

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST NO 191 OF 2026

BETWEEN

	Limbu Gita	Applicant
	and
	Torture Claims Appeal Board	Putative 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 oral submissions by the Applicant in open court / the Applicant being absent in open court;

Order by Deputy High Court Judge Bruno Chan:

Leave to apply for judicial review be refused.

Observations for the Applicant:

1.The Applicant is a 42-year-old national of India who last arrived in Hong Kong on 15 August 2019 with permission to continue to work as a foreign domestic helper until the expiration of her employment contract or within 14 days of its early termination, but on 24 April 2022 she was arrested by police for using an identity card of another person, and for which she was subsequently convicted and sentenced to prison for 15 months, whereupon she raised a non-refoulement claim for protection to the Immigration Department on the basis that if she returned to India she would be harmed or killed by the family of her former boyfriend in revenge for causing his death and/or arrested and prosecuted by the Indian police and authorities for his death.

2.The Applicant was born and raised in Bhujiapani, Upper Bagdogra, Naxabari, Siliguri Subdivision, District Darjeeling, West Bengal, India where she in 2005 or 2006 met and formed a relationship with her boyfriend Nabin, and in 2011 they started to cohabit together in some rented place in the bazaar area of Bhujiapani.

3.However, over time Nabin started to indulge in drinking and when drunk would become abusive towards the Applicant, and on one occasion in late 2014 when he again became drunk and tried to attack her but the Applicant grabbed a glass bottle and struck him in the head that he fell on the floor unconscious, whereupon the Applicant fled from their home to hide in her grandfather’s place in Naple where she later heard from a friend that Nabin had subsequently died from his injuries.

4.As a result the Applicant became concerned for her safety, and in order to make her own living she therefore applied to work in Hong Kong as a foreign domestic helper, and eventually in August 2015 she arrived in Hong Kong to start her employment, and later when she was told by her friend that the family of Nabin were looking for her that whenever she returned to India for holidays she did not return to her home district and instead only stayed in New Delhi, but when her last employment was terminated after she was arrested by police in April 2022, she subsequently raised her non-refoulement claim for protection, for which she completed a Non-refoulement Claim Form (“NCF”) on 1 April 2025 and attended screening interview before the Immigration Department with legal representation from the Duty Lawyer Service (“DLS”).

5.By a Notice of Decision dated 12 June 2025 the Director of Immigration (“Director”) rejected the Applicant’s claim on all the applicable grounds including risk of torture under Part VIIC of the Immigration Ordinance, Cap 115 (“Torture Risk”), risk of her absolute or non-derogable rights under the Hong Kong Bill of Rights Ordinance, Cap 383 (“HKBOR”) being violated including right to life under Article 2 (“BOR 2 Risk”), risk of torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment under Article 3 of HKBOR (“BOR 3 Risk”), and risk of persecution with reference to the non-refoulement principle under Article 33 of the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees (“Persecution Risk”).

6.In his decision the Director took into account of all the relevant circumstances of the Applicant’s claim and assessed the level of risk of harm from the family of her former boyfriend Nabin upon her return to India as low due to the absence of past ill-treatment from them, that there is no evidence that Nabin had died from the incident or of any threats from his family against the Applicant other than just some hearsays from a friend and the Applicant’s own speculations, that in any event in the absence of any official involvement that state or police protection would be available to the Applicant if resorted to, and that reliable and objective Country of Origin Information (“COI”) show that reasonable internal relocation alternatives are available in India with a large population of 1.4 billion people spread across a vast territory of more than 3.2 million square kilometers that it would not be unduly harsh for the Applicant as an able-bodied adult with working experience to move to other areas of the country away from her home district in large cities such as Mumbai or Delhi where it would be difficult if not impossible for Nabin’s family to locate her, while her claimed fear of being arrested by the police for Nabin’s death was unsupported by any evidence of any adverse interests of the authorities in her given the fact that she had been able to fly in and out of the country on various occasions since 2014 without any problem, and that if indeed she is being wanted by the Indian authorities that she would be considered as a fugitive from justice in India and not entitled to non-refoulement protection in Hong Kong.

7.On 23 June 2025 the Applicant lodged an appeal to the Torture Claims Appeal Board (“Board”) against the Director’s decision, and for which she attended an oral hearing on 16 October 2025 before the Board during which she gave evidence and answered questions raised of her claim by the Adjudicator for the Board. On 27 October 2025 her appeal was dismissed by the Board which also confirmed the Director’s decision.

8.In its decision[1] the Board accepted the Applicant’s claim of fear of harm from the family of her former boyfriend Nabin and/or the police over his death upon her return to India but found no reliable evidence of any real intention of Nabin’s family to seriously harm or kill her other than just hearsays from a friend and her own suspicions and speculations, and that in the absence of any official involvement that state or police protection would be available to the Applicant upon her return to India if resorted to as well as reasonable internal relocation alternatives for her to move safely to other parts of the country away from her home district without any risk of being located by Nabin’s family, while there is no evidence of any adverse interests of the Indian police or authorities in her over the alleged death of Nabin given the fact that she had been able to fly in and out of the country all these years without any problem with the authorities that it is not accepted that she is being wanted by the Indian police or authorities over the alleged death of Nabin, and that if indeed she is being wanted by the police over his death that the Applicant would be regarded as a fugitive from justice in India that she would not be entitled to non-refoulement protection in Hong Kong that the Board concluded that her claim for non-refoulement protection failed on all applicable grounds.

9.On 16 January 2026 the Applicant filed her Form 86 for leave to apply for judicial review of the Board’s decision, but no ground for seeking relief was given in her Form or her supporting affirmation of the same date in which she just repeated her claim as before but without putting forth any proper ground for her intended challenge, nor did she request any oral hearing for her application. As such, and in the absence of any error of law or irrationality or procedural unfairness in her process before the Board or in its decision being clearly and properly identified by the Applicant, I do not find any reasonably arguable basis for his intended challenge of the Board’s decision.

10.As has been repeatedly emphasized by the Court of Appeal, judicial review does not operate as a rehearing of a non-refoulement claim when the proper occasion for the Applicant to present and articulate his claim is in the screening process and interview before the Immigration Department and in the process before the Board where the evaluation of the risk of harm is primarily a matter for the Director and the Board as they are entitled to make such evaluation based on the evidence available to them that the court will not usurp their role as primary decision makers in the absence of any legal error or procedural unfairness or irrationality in their decisions being clearly and properly identified by the Applicant, as judicial review is not an avenue for revisiting the assessment by them in the hope that the court may consider the matter afresh: Re Lakhwinder Singh [2018] HKCA 246; Re Daljit Singh [2018] HKCA 328; Re Mudannayakalage Chaminda Pushpa Kumara [2018] HKCA 400; and Nupur Mst v Director of Immigration [2018] HKCA 524.

11.In the Applicant’s case, the Board rejected her claim for the thorough and detailed analysis and reasoning set out in its decision with the benefit of hearing her in her oral evidence and her answers to questions raised of her claim as well as relevant COI on the situations of her home country, and in the absence of any error of law or procedural unfairness in her process before the Board or in its decision being clearly and properly identified by the Applicant, I do not find any reasonably arguable basis to challenge the finding of the Board.

12.Furthermore, the fact is that it has also been established by both the Director and the Board in their respective decisions that the risk of harm in the Applicant’s claim from Nabin’s family even if real is a localized one and that it is not unreasonable or unsafe for her to relocate to other part of India, there is simply no justification to afford her with non‑refoulement protection in Hong Kong: see TK v Jenkins & Anor [2013] 1 HKC 526.

13.Having considered the decisions of both the Director and the Board with rigorous examination and anxious scrutiny, I do not find any error of law or procedural unfairness in either of them, nor any failure on their part to apply high standards of fairness in their consideration and assessment of the Applicant’s claim.

14.In the premises, as I am for the given reasons not satisfied that there is any prospect of success in the Applicant’s intended application for judicial review, I therefore refuse to grant leave and accordingly dismiss her application.

Dated the 29^th day of October 2026

(Chung Lai Fan, Christine)
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 29 October 2026 Limbu Gita 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 29 October 2026 Torture Claims Appeal Board Putative Respondent’s ref. no.: USM 26723 Director of Immigration Putative Interested Party’s ref. no.: QA T/C 663/25 (formerly RBCZ 5000513/25) Department of Justice, Senior Assistant Law Officer (Civil Law) (Civil Litigation Unit 2)