Case Detail

HCAL 1549/2024

[2025] HKCFI 130

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST

NO. 1549 OF 2024

_____________

BETWEEN
	AMANDEEP SINGH	Applicant
	and
	TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD	Putative Respondent
	and
	DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION	Putative
		Interested Party

_____________

Before:

Deputy High Court Judge Bruno Chan in Chambers

Date of Hearing:	17 December 2024
Date of Decision:	3 January 2025

_______________

D E C I S I O N

_______________

1. On 10 October 2024 I refused to grant leave to the Applicant to apply for judicial review of a decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board (“Board”) in rejecting/dismissing his non-refoulement claim upon finding that none of the grounds put forward by him reasonably arguable for his intended challenge, that there was no error of law or procedural unfairness in the process before the Director of Immigration (“Director”) or the Board or in their decisions, and that there was no reasonable prospect of success in his intended application.

2. The Applicant now by a summons issued on 30 October 2024 seeks extension of time to appeal against that decision, as the 14-day period after the decision within which to file his appeal under Order 53 Rule 3(4) of the Rules of the High Court, Cap. 4A expired on 24 October 2024, and hence he was 6 days late with his intended appeal.

3. In considering whether to extend time for appealing against a decision refusing leave to apply for judicial review, the Court shall have regard to (i) the length of the delay; (ii) the reason for the delay; (iii) the prospect of the intended appeal; and (iv) the prejudice to the respondent if extension of time were granted: see Re MK HCMP 2609/2016, 10 January 2017; Chu On Fong Winter v The Appeal Panel (Housing) HCMP 982/2017, 20 July 2017; Islam Raja Rais v Director of Immigration HCMP 881/2017, 26 June 2017; Re Gurung Min Bahadur[2018] HKCA 226; and Re Saqlain Muhammad[2018] HKCA 346.

4. In the Applicant’s case, a delay of 6 days may not be considered as substantial or significant, for which he explained in his affirmation and at the hearing of his summons that he has been detained by the Immigration Department at the Castle Peak Bay Immigration Centre (“CIC”), and as he was without legal representation that he did not realize the 14-day time limit for him to file his appeal, and for which he had had to seek help from outside to prepare the necessary documents for him to do so.

5. The court record shows that the decision was sent on the same day of 10 October 2024 to the Applicant’s present detention at CIC without being returned through undelivered post, while ignorance of the procedural rules can never be accepted as justification for their non-compliance, but given his detention and the fairly insignificance of the delay, I propose to focus on the prospect of his intended appeal.

6. In his supporting affirmation the Applicant stated as follows:

“I am the Applicant herein.
I believe that the decision made by High Court Judge Bruno Chan was reached unfairly. I was not given adequate opportunity to clarify my case and present the full extent of my situation in my country. As a litigant in person and unrepresented, I faced difficulties in effectively presenting my arguments and providing all necessary information to the court.
I would like to inform the Court that I have been detained at Castle Peak Bay Immigration Centre since arriving in Hong Kong six months ago. Being uneducated, I had no understanding of legal proceedings, and I followed the instructions given to me by my case officer and roommates in the Centre.
My appeal is out of time because I was unaware of the specific documents required to be filed in the High Court and the associated deadlines.Consequently, I did not realize that I needed to file an appeal within the 14-day time limit. I kindly request an extension of time to file my appeal.”

7. At the hearing the Applicant relied on the above as his grounds of appeal without providing any further details as to how the decision of the Court was reached unfairly or how he was not given adequate opportunity to present his case when he never requested any oral hearing of his application. More importantly, the Applicant has failed to put forth any proper or valid draft or proposed grounds of appeal, or any particulars of any error in the decision or why it may reasonably be argued that the decision was unfair or unreasonable either in his summons or in his affirmation, nor was he as noted above able to do so at the hearing of his summons. As such, and in the absence of any error in the decision being clearly and properly identified by the Applicant, I do not see any prospect of success in his intended appeal.

8. In the premises, and for the reasons given, it would be futile to extend time for what appears to be a hopeless appeal. Accordingly, I refuse his application for extension of time to appeal, and dismiss his summons.

(Bruno Chan)
Deputy High Court Judge

The Applicant appeared in person

HCAL 1549/2024

[2024] HKCFI 2781

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST NO 1549 OF 2024

BETWEEN
	Amandeep Singh	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 39-year-old national of India who arrived in Hong Kong on 26 March 2024 but when he was refused entry by the Immigration Department, he raised a non-refoulement claim for protection on the basis that if he returned to India he would be harmed or killed by his creditors over his unpaid debts.

2. The Applicant was born and raised in Village Withwan, Gurdaspur, Punjab, India. After leaving school he worked in the construction field, got married and raised a family with 3 children in his home district.

3. In 2018 he started his own farming business with the help of loans from some local money-lenders with monthly interests payments which he initially managed to make from his business income.

4. However, in 2021 his creditors demanded repayment of his loans, and when he was unable to do so, his creditors then sent men to threaten him, and on one occasion in 2022 he was beaten by his creditors and followers with wooden sticks that he suffered cuts and bruises all over his body and was subsequently taken to the hospital for medical treatment.

5. Upon his discharge from the hospital, the Applicant became fearful for his life and fled to a neighbouring village to hide in his aunt’s place, and on 14 March 2024 he departed India for Macau, and when he later travelled to Hong Kong but was refused entry, he then raised his non-refoulement claim for protection, for which he completed a Non-refoulement Claim Form (“NCF”) on 18 April 2024 and attended screening interview before the Immigration Department with legal representation from the Duty Lawyer Service (“DLS”).

6. By a Notice of Decision dated 14 May 2024 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 his 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”).

7. 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 his creditors and followers upon his return to India as low due to the low intensity and frequency of past ill-treatment from them, that there is no evidence of any real intention of his creditors to seriously harm or kill him other than to press him to repay his debts, that in any event they were private monetary disputes between him and his creditors only without 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 his home district in large cities such as Mumbai or Delhi where it would be difficult if not impossible for his creditors to locate him.

8. On 24 May 2024 the Applicant lodged an appeal to the Torture Claims Appeal Board (“Board”) against the Director’s decision, and for which he attended an oral hearing on 2 August 2024 before the Board during which he gave evidence and answered questions raised of his claim by the Adjudicator for the Board. On 7 August 2024 his appeal was dismissed by the Board which also confirmed the Director’s decision.

9. In its decision the Board accepted the Applicant’s claim of fear of harm from his creditors over his outstanding debts but found they were just private monetary disputes between him and his creditors only without any official involvement that state or police protection would be available to the Applicant upon his return to India as well as reasonable internal relocation alternatives for him to move safely to other parts of the country away from his home district without any risk of being located that his claim for non-refoulement protection failed on all applicable grounds.

10. On 9 September 2024 the Applicant filed his Form 86 for leave to apply for judicial review of the Board’s decision, but no ground for seeking relief was given in his Form or in his supporting affirmation of the same date in which he just stated that he is not satisfied with the decision but without putting forth any proper ground for his intended challenge, nor did he request any oral hearing for his application. As such, and in the absence of any error of law or irrationality or procedural unfairness in his 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.

11. 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: ReLakhwinder 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.

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

13. In the premises, and 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. For all these reasons I am 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 his application.

Dated the 10th day of October 2024

(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 10 October 2024 Amandeep 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 10 October 2024 Torture Claims Appeal Board Putative Respondent’s ref. no.: USM 23716 Director of Immigration Putative Interested Party’s ref. no.: QA T/C 1020/24 (formerly RBCZ 5000915/24) Department of Justice, Senior Assistant Law Officer (Civil Law) (Civil Litigation Unit 2)

Form CALL-1

AMANDEEP SINGH v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD [Decision on Leave Application]

Related cases with same parties

Files (2)

	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;