Case Detail

MASIH SUNNY v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

Related cases with same parties

CACV100/2026SINGH NARINDER PAL v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE
CACV10/2022ROBILLOS ADOLFO DE LA CRUZ v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE
CACV103/2021LUU THI VAN v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD /NON REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE
CACV103/2023ALMAS KHAWAR v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE
CACV103/2025COLLINS OBI v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE
CACV104/2019DHALI JONY v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE
CACV104/2023VU THI NGOC MY v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE
CACV105/2021DINH THI VAN 對 TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITON OFFICE
CACV107/2023NGUYEN THI THUY v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE
CACV107/2025AHMAD AQEEL v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE
CACV1081/2025HOANG VAN BINH v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE
CACV110/2021AYUB MUHAMMAD v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE
CACV11/2023RUPASINGHA ARACHCHIGE SHIROMA THARANGANI v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE
CACV112/2025NONG THI HA v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE
CACV113/2022SITI MULDIYATI v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE
CACV1151/2025ARSHDEEP SINGH v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE
CACV115/2022GALLEGO VALDES AUGUSTO v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE
CACV115/2024QUIRANTE JACKIELON DE GUZMAN v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE
CACV115/2025DINH KHAC KIEN v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE
CACV1153/2025MEGA PUSPITA SARI v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

Files (2)

[2025] HKCFI 2603-EN-2025-07-15

MASIH SUNNY v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

HTML content

HCAL 2283/2024

[2025] HKCFI 2603

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST

NO. 2283 OF 2024

_____________

BETWEEN
	Masih Sunny	Applicant
	and
	Torture Claims Appeal Board /	Putative
	Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office	Respondent
	and
	Director of Immigration	Putative
		Interested Party

_____________

Before:

Deputy High Court Judge K.W. Lung in Chambers

Date of Decision:

15 July 2025

_______________

D E C I S I O N

_______________

THE APPLICATION

1. The applicant is an illegal immigrant by staying in Hong Kong without permission and he lodged a non-refoulement claim with the Director of Immigration (“the Director”). The Director rejected his application and he appealed to the Torture Claims Appeal Board (“the Board”). Having considered his evidence, the Board, by its Decision (“the Board’s Decision”), rejected his appeal and affirmed the Director’s Decision.

2. Pursuant to Order 53, rule 3(2) of the Rules of the High Court (“RHC”), the applicant filed Form No. 86 to apply for leave to apply for judicial review of the Board’s Decision.

3. By Judgment dated 11 March 2025 (“the Judgment”), the Court dismissed his application for the reason that there is no realistic prospect of success in his intended application.

4. The Judgment was sent to the applicant on 11 March 2025 at his last known address without being returned from the Post Office. He is deemed to receive the Court’s decision.

5. The time for filing the notice of appeal expired on 25 March 2025[1].

6. By summons filed on 9 April 2025, the applicant applied for appeal against the Court’s decision out of time. He is late for 15 days.

7. In his affirmation in support of his application, the applicant said that he was not given a chance to clarify his case and situation in his country and he did not receive the Judgment.

Discussion

8. Pursuant to Order 32, rule 11 and 11A and Order 53, rule 3(3) of the RHC, having considered the applicant’s reason, I decide to determine this application on paper without an oral hearing[2].

9. The Court will consider the factors as set out in AW v. Director of Immigration and William Lam [2016] 2 HKC 393 at para. 27(3) in considering if extension of time should be extended: (1) the length of delay; (2) the reasons for the delay; (3) the prospect of the intended appeal; and (4) the prejudice to the putative respondent if extension of time was granted. I shall consider the merits of his case.

10. In Re Adumekwe Rowland Ejike[2019] HKCA 702, the Court of Appeal held:

“19. The prospect of success of the intended appeal is important: the court will not grant extension for a hopeless appeal to be pursued, see Re Rahman Wasif[2019] HKCA 299 at [13]; Re Kpamou Gbotoi Bernard[2019] HKCA 168; and Re Irshad Muhammad[2018] HKCA 864 at [16].”

11. The applicant claimed that if refouled, he would be harmed or killed by his paternal uncle due a land dispute.

12. The Director rejected his claim because it was not substantiated. He appealed to the Board.

13. Having considered the evidence, the Board dismissed his appeal for the reason that his evidence was not credible; and in any event, state protection is available and internal relocation is viable if he returns to India.

14. He was absent at the hearing fixed for him. He is deemed to receive the Judgment as it was sent to his last known address without return[3].

15. There is no valid reason from the applicant to challenge the Court’s decision.

16. In the circumstances, I refuse to extend time for his appeal. Accordingly, I dismiss his application.

(K.W. Lung)
Deputy High Court Judge

The applicant was unrepresented.

[1] The public holidays are included in the 14-day period as per Order 2(5) of the Rules of the High Court

2. Reckoning periods of time (O. 3, r. 2)
(5) Where, apart from this paragraph, the period in question, being a period of 7 days or less, would include a specified day, that day shall be excluded.
(35 of 1998 s. 5; 18 of 2016 s. 5)

[2] Ogbozor Tochukwu Eugene v Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office and Director of Immigration[2022] HKCA 607, Hon Kwan VP and G Lam JA, 6 May 2022:

“16. … … In respect of his complaint of no oral hearing, the judge is entitled to decide the matter on paper pursuant to the Order 32, rules 11 and 11A and Order 53 rule 3(3) of the Rules of the High Court.”

[3] Re: Ravinder Singh[2023] HKCA 604, Hon Poon CJHC and Cheung JA, 28 April 2023

“17. The applicant had not filed any notice of change of address for service to notify of any changes in his address. According to the Court’s record, the Court’s decision was sent to the applicant’s last known address on 31 March 2022 by ordinary post. He was deemed to receive the same on the next following day, not being a specified day such as a Saturday or a general holiday. He was therefore deemed to have received the Court’s decision on 1 April 2022. ”

HCAL 2283/2024

[2025] HKCFI 718

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST

NO. 2283 OF 2024

_____________

BETWEEN
	Masih Sunny	Applicant
	and
	Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office	Putative Respondent
	and
	Director of Immigration	Putative
		Interested Party

_____________

Before:

Deputy High Court Judge K.W. Lung in Court

Date of Hearing:	5 February 2025
Date of Judgment:	11 March 2025

_______________

J U D G M E N T

_______________

THE APPLICATION

1. The applicant applies for leave to apply for judicial review of the Decision dated 11 November 2024 of the Torture Claims Appeal Board dismissing the applicant’s appeal against the Director’s Decision as described below (“the Board’s Decision”).

2. The applicant asked for a hearing. However, he was absent at the hearing on 5 February 2025. I shall deal with his application on the papers.

The applicant

3. The applicant is a national of India. The applicant came to Hong Kong by the strength of his Indian passport and was refused permission to land on 27 June 2024. On the same day, the applicant lodged his non-refoulement claim.

4. The applicant’s claim was based on his fear of being harmed or killed by his paternal uncle due to a land dispute.

5. According to the applicant, there were two assault incidents in August 2022 and December 2023 where the applicant’s paternal uncle and his associates assaulted the applicant due to the refusal of the applicant’s father to give up his land. The matter was reported to police, which took no action. Details of his claim are set out at paragraph 6 of the Notice of Decision dated 13 August 2024 by the Director (the “Director’s Decision”).

The Director’s Decision

6. The Director considered the applicant’s claim in relation to the following risks:

a.  risk of torture under Part VIIC of the Immigration Ordinance, Cap. 115, (“the Ordinance”) (“Torture risk”);
b.  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”);
c.  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
d.  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”).

7. By way of the Director’s Decision, the Director assessed the applicant’s claim and dismissed his claim. In summary, the Director found that: the past ill-treatment inflicted did not attain a minimum level of severity, perceived risk of harm is not as substantial as claimed, and the problem with the paternal uncle was private in nature and not an official matter [11-14]; state protection was available and there was no indication that the Indian government would fail to protect the applicant [16-20]; and internal relocation alternatives were available and reasonable [21-23].

The Board’s Decision

8. The applicant appealed the Director’s Decision to the Board. On 18 October 2024, the Board conducted an oral hearing for his appeal, during which the applicant gave verbal evidence and adopted as evidence what he had said in his various documents and before the Director [28].

9. Having considered the evidence, the Board found that the applicant did not present himself as particularly believable or unbelievable and was internally consistent [61-64]; found that a land dispute within a family is not a reason for non-refoulement claim [115]; and that the applicant faced no genuine and substantial risk of being subjected to ill-treatment [129]. In any event, having reviewed the various Country of Origin Information [67-113], the Board found there was reasonable state protection for the applicant [113, 137] and the Board was satisfied that it would not unreasonable or unduly harsh for the applicant to internally relocate [114]. In conclusion, the Board held that the applicant’s claim failed under all applicable grounds. It therefore dismissed his appeal and confirmed the Director’s Decision.

Application for leave to apply for judicial review of the Board’s Decision

10. The applicant has filed Form 86 dated 27 November 2024 for leave to apply for judicial review of the Board’s Decision.

11. In his affirmation in support of his application, the applicant has raised the grounds to challenge the Board’s Decision, which are summarized as follows: the Director’s and Board’s Decisions were not reasonable and irrational; there was a failure to consider state acquiescence; excessive reliance on country of origin information; and procedural impropriety and unfair assessment.

DISCUSSION

12. 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).

13. The Court will bear in mind that the Board’s Decision should be examined with rigorous examination and anxious scrutiny.

14. 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.”

15. Those grounds under paragraph 11 are bare assertions or the applicant’s personal comments without any evidence in support. They are not valid to challenge the Board’s Decision.

16. There is no reason that the Court should interfere with the Board’s finding of the facts.

17. The applicant fails to show that he has any realistic prospect of success in his proposed judicial review of the Board’s Decision.

DISPOSITION

18. I refuse to grant leave to the applicant to apply for judicial review of the Board’s Decision. Accordingly, I dismiss his application.

(K.W. Lung)
Deputy High Court Judge

The applicant was unrepresented and did not appear.