Case Detail

HCAL 844/2020

[2025] HKCFI 3003

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST No. 844 of 2020

BETWEEN
	Sandeep Singh	Applicant
	and
	Non-Refoulement Claims Petition Office	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;

Order by Deputy High Court Judge (Non-Refoulement Claims) Lewis Law:

1. The Applicant’s Form 86 be amended by naming the NRCPO as the putative respondent and the DI as the putative interested party; and
2. The application for leave to apply for judicial review be dismissed.

Observations for the Applicant:

1. By a Form 86 filed on 8 May 2020 (“Form 86”), the Applicant sought leave for judicial review of the decision of an adjudicator of the Non-Refoulement Claims Petition Office (“NRCPO”) made on 23 April 2020 (“the NRCPO Decision”). A copy of the NRCPO Decision can be viewed by the following hyperlink[1].

2. The NRCPO Decision was made pursuant to a petition from a decision of the Director of Immigration (“DI”) dated 11 June 2018. The Applicant having failed to name any putative respondent or putative interested party, I amended the Form 86 on my own motion to name the NRCPO as the putative respondent and the DI as the putative interested party.

3. The Applicant’s non-refoulement claim was based on his alleged fear of his girlfriend’s family, which was said to be influential in the relevant area of India (the Applicant’s country of origin) and connected to a political party. According to the NRCPO Decision, the NRCPO conducted an oral hearing. After an intense factual analysis of the Applicant’s claims and evidence, the NRCPO came to the view that the Applicant was not a witness of truth. This incredibility finding was based on, amongst others, the Applicant’s failure to present a narrative about his relationship with the claimed girlfriend, failure to recall the political party said to be connected and the number of occasions he alleged to have been assaulted. Accordingly, the Applicant was found to be not subject to any real risk of ill-treatment infringing his rights under Article 2 and 3 of the Hong Kong Bill of Rights or persecution. The NRCPO also found that the Applicant had a reasonable internal relocation alternative even if he was subject to any real risk of ill-treatment.

4. In his Form 86 and supporting affirmation, the Applicant did not point to any errors of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality of the NRCPO Decision. 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 body determining an appeal/petition from the DI. In the absence of any errors of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality, the Court would not reopen the factual findings below 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/petition (see Re Lakhwinder Singh [2018] HKCA 246).

5. I have reviewed the NRCPO Decision vigorously, but do not find the proposed judicial review reasonably arguable. The leave application is thus dismissed.

Dated the 17^th day of July 2025

(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

Notesfor 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 July 2025 Sandeep Singh 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 July 2025 Non-Refoulement Claims Petition Office Putative Respondent’s ref. no.: USM 12150/18/6/329/IN2428 Director of Immigration Putative Interested Party’s ref. no.: QA T/C 1237/09 (formerly RBCZ/574/09); QA T/C 1356/18 (formerly RBCZ 2002537/14)(T5S98) Department of Justice, Senior Assistant Law Officer (Civil Law) (Civil Litigation Unit 2)

Form CALL-1

[1]https://legalref.judiciary.hk/doc/judg/html/vetted/other/en/2020/HCAL000844_2020_files/the_Board's_Decision.pdf

SANDEEP SINGH v. NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE [Decision on Leave Application]

Related cases with same parties

	consideration of the documents only; or
	consideration of the documents and oral submissions by the Applicant in open court;