AJAY KUMAR v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE [Decision on Leave Application]
HTML content
HCAL 1391/2021
[2026] HKCFI 1390
IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST No. 1391 of 2021
BETWEEN | ||
| Ajay Kumar | Applicant | |
| and | ||
| Torture Claims Appeal Board / | Putative | |
| Non-Refoulement Claims Petition Office | 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 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 5 October 2021, the Applicant sought leave for judicial review of the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-Refoulement Claims Petition Office (“the Board”) dated 4 August 2021 (“the Board’s Decision”), which was made pursuant to a petition/appeal from the decision of the Director of Immigration (“DI”) dated 6 December 2018. A copy of the Board’s Decision can be seen by the following hyperlink[1].
2. According to the Board’s Decision, the non-refoulement claim of the Applicant, an Indian, was based on a family dispute between him and his uncle over 2 shops. Physical violence was alleged. In spite of the Applicant’s initial absence from the first arranged hearing before the Board, the Applicant ultimately appeared before the Board on 23 June 2021 with the assistance of an interpreter. Based on the written materials available to the Board and the Applicant’s answers during the hearing, the Board found the Applicant’s factual account inconsistent; he was also unable to give satisfactory explanations over certain important matters in his claim. The Board did not consider the central elements of the Applicant’s claim credible, and dismissed the appeal/petition on that ground.
3. The Applicant has not set out any grounds of judicial review in the Form 86 or supporting affirmation. I have considered the Board’s Decision vigorously, but am unable to detect any reasonable argument that the decision was tainted by any illegality, irrationality or procedural impropriety. In my view, the Board has conducted an anxious scrutiny of the facts of the case and assessed intensely its factual issues.
4. This application for leave to apply for judicial review is therefore dismissed.
Dated the 10th day of April 2026
| (Klein Tse) 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 10 April 2026 Ajay Kumar 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 10 April 2026 Torture Claims Appeal Board/ Non-Refoulement Claims Petition Office Putative Respondent’s ref. no.: USM 14944/18/12/301/IN2961 Director of Immigration Putative Interested Party’s ref. no.: QA T/C 5041/18 (formerly RBCZ 14538/15) 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/2021/HCAL001391_2021_files/the_Board's_Decision.pdf