HANUMAN RAM v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE [Decision on Leave Application]

bjbj HCAL 1457/2025 [2026] HKCFI 2216 IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST No. 1457 of 2025 BETWEEN Hanuman Ram Applicant Torture Claims Appeal Board/ Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office Putative Respondent 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 documents only; or consideration of documents and Applicant being absent in open court; Order by Deputy High Court Judge K.W. Lung: Leave to apply for Judicial Review be refused. Observations for the Applicant: THE APPLICATION The applicant applies for leave to apply for judicial review of the Decision dated 16 June 2025 of the Torture Claims Appeal Board ( the Board s Decision ), dismissing the appeal against the Director s Decision as described below. The applicant did not ask for a hearing. The applicant The applicant is a national of India. He is an illegal immigrant. He lodged a non-refoulement claim with the Director of Immigration ( the Director ) on the basis that, if refouled, he will be harmed or killed by the creditor of his late grandfather as the creditor wanted to seize his father s land. Details of his claim are set out in the Board s Decision. See hyperlink HYPERLINK "https://legalref.judiciary.hk/doc/judg/html/vetted/other/en/2025/HCAL001457_2025_files/the_Board's_Decision.pdf" https://legalref.judiciary.hk/doc/judg/html/vetted/other/en/2025/HCAL001457_2025_files/the_Board's_Decision.pdf . The Director s Decision The Director considered the applicant s claim in relation to the following risks: risk of torture under Part VIIC of the Immigration Ordinance, Cap. 115 ( the Ordinance Torture risk ); risk of violation of the right to life under Article 2 of Section 8 of the Hong Kong Bill of Rights Ordinance, Cap. 383 ( HKBOR BOR 2 risk ); risk of torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment ( CIDTP ) under Article 3 of Section 8 of the HKBOR ( BOR 3 risk ); and risk of persecution by reference to the non-refoulement principle under Article 33 of the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees and its 1967 Protocol ( Refugee Convention Persecution risk ). By way of Notice of Decision dated 25 February 2025 ( the Director s Decision ), the Director dismissed the applicant s claim on all applicable risks because it was unsubstantiated. The Board s Decision The applicant appealed the Director s Decision to the Board. On 14 April 2025, the Board conducted an oral hearing for his appeal. He had given oral evidence and answered the Board s questions. Having considered the evidence, the Board made the findings below. The Board agreed with the Director s findings that doubts have been created as to the genuineness of the alleged debt between the applicant s family and the creditor s family. The Board further found that the applicant s evidence was not credible due to his lack of knowledge of the particulars of the land and the debts, and his evidence in his statement and before the Board were inconsistent. Furthermore, it would be implausible and unreasonable for the creditor to threaten the applicant rather than his father, who is the registered owner of the land. [66]-[79] There is no evidence that the creditor is still looking for him or intending to harm him. Therefore, there is no evidence that he has any real risk if he returns to India. [85]-[92] State protection will be available if he returns to India. [101] Internal relocation is viable. [148] For the reasons above, the Board dismissed his appeal and affirmed the Director s Decision. Application for leave to apply for judicial review of the Board s Decision The applicant has filed Form 86 dated 24 June 2025 for leave to apply for judicial review of the Board s Decision. The applicant did not raise any specific ground to challenge the Board s Decision. DISCUSSION 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, 40 and Nupur Mst v Director of Immigration [2018] HKCA 524, 14 (1). The Court will bear in mind that the Board s Decision should be examined with rigorous examination and anxious scrutiny. In Re: Kartini [2019] HKCA 1022, 9 September 2019, the Court of Appeal held: 13. (1) Assessment of evidence and COI materials and risk of harm, state protection and viability of internal relocation are primarily within the province of the Board (and the Director). The 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. The applicant has raised no valid ground to challenge the Board s findings. The applicant fails to show that he has any realistic prospect of success in his proposed judicial review of the Board s Decision. DISPOSITION I refuse to grant leave to the applicant to apply for judicial review of the Board s Decision. Accordingly, I dismiss his application. Dated the 30th day of April 2026 (Joyce Ooi) 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 30/04/2026 Hanuman Ram 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 30/04/2026 Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office Putative Respondent s ref. no.: USM 25808 Director of Immigration Putative Interested Party s ref. no.: INCL-0003164-24 (7) (CZ) Department of Justice, Senior Assistant Law Officer (Civil Law) (Civil Litigation Unit 2) Form CALL-1 PAGE \* MERGEFORMAT hGCP hGCP hGCP gd3WV gd_m gdr1{ gd3WV {qddq{U{ gd3<= gdLfb gdLfb gdLfb ytu6 gZgZ xgxgP ytu6 :p3: ytu6 ytu6 phFx ph`^\ [Content_Types].xml _rels/.rels theme/theme/themeManager.xml K Y, sQ}# theme/theme/theme1.xml z)P -zh 83;3;{ ]XS1IH 0H!A Ssd- ]A3U mH#[ A\;> K}*7c ^I77 >g^* y')f ZI$G ,{uk< WV j k3 zjv3,j X1? Xjg YIsR3 gm~x theme/theme/_rels/themeManager.xml.rels 5 6?$Q K(M&$R(.1 [Content_Types].xmlPK _rels/.relsPK theme/theme/themeManager.xmlPK theme/theme/theme1.xmlPK theme/theme/_rels/themeManager.xml.relsPK <?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" standalone="yes"?> <a:clrMap xmlns:a="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/main" bg1="lt1" tx1="dk1" bg2="lt2" tx2="dk2" accent1="accent1" accent2="accent2" accent3="accent3" accent4="accent4" accent5="accent5" accent6="accent6" hlink="hlink" folHlink="folHlink"/> b Bo b Bo GQoU KimWan Lung Normal.dotm Cheung HoKin Microsoft Office Word "System "System "System Times New Roman Times New Roman HCAL 1457 2025 2026 ] HKCFI 2216 Times New Roman IN THE HIGH COURT OF HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST No. 1457 2025 BETWEEN Hanuman Ram Applicant Torture Claims Appeal Board/ refoulement Claims Petition Office Putative Respondent Director of Immigration Putative Interested Party Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review NOTIFICATION of the Judge decision (Ord. 53 r. 3) Following Wingdings 2 consideration of documents only; or consideration of documents and Applicant being absent in open court; Order by Deputy High Court Judge K.W. Lung Times New Roman Leave to apply for Judicial Review be refused Observations for the Applicant: Times New Roman THE APPLICATION "Arial The applicant applies for leave to apply for judicial review of the Decision dated 16 June 2025 of the Torture Claims Appeal Board ( the Board s Decision dismissing the appeal against the Director s Decision as described below. The applicant did not ask for a hearing. The applicant The applicant is a national of India . He is an illegal immigrant. He lodged a refoulement claim with the Director of Immigration ( the Director ) on the basis that, if refouled, he will be harmed or killed by the creditor of his late grandfather as the creditor wanted to seize his father s land. "Arial Title _PID_HLINKS Microsoft Word 97-2003 Document MSWordDoc Word.Document.8