LAMA PRASHNA v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE [Decision on Leave Application]
HTML content
HCAL 1193/2025
[2026] HKCFI 744
IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST No. 1193 of 2025
BETWEEN | ||
| Lama Prashna | 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 documents only; or | |
| consideration of documents and oral submissions by the Applicant 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
1. The applicant applies for leave to apply for judicial review of the Decision dated 9 May 2025 of the Torture Claims Appeal Board (“the Board’s Decision).
2. The applicant appeared before the Court on 14 January 2026.
3. Pursuant to Order 20, rule 8 and Order 53, rule 3(6) of the Rules of the High Court, Form 86 is amended to the effect that the proposed respondent is the Board and the Director of Immigration is the interested party.
The applicant
4. The applicant is a national of India. She is an illegal immigrant for the reason that she overstayed after her employment terminated. She was arrested. She lodged a non-refoulement claim on the basis that, if refouled, she will be harmed or killed by her creditor because she was unable to repay her debt.
5. Details of her claim are set out in the Board’s Decision. See hyperlink https://legalref.judiciary.hk/doc/judg/html/vetted/other/en/2025/HCAL001193_2025_files/the_Board's_Decision.pdf
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 Notice of Decision dated 20 January 2025 (“Director’s Decision”), the Director dismissed the applicant’s claim on all applicable risks because it was unsubstantiated.
The Board’s Decision
8. The applicant appealed the Director’s Decision to the Board. On 31 March 2025, the Board conducted an oral hearing for her. She had given evidence and answered the Board’s questions.
9. Having considered the evidence, the Board made the findings below.
(1) Her claims were a fabrication. However, even accepting her claim, she may live safely in another part of India. [34]
(2) Her evidence was different from that given to the Director. [36]
(3) For those reasons, the applicant failed on all of the applicable risks.
10. For the above reasons, the Board dismissed her appeal.
Application for leave to apply for judicial review of the Board’s Decision
11. The applicant has filed Form 86 dated 22 May 2025 for leave to apply for judicial review of the Board’s Decision.
12. The applicant has raised the grounds below against the Board as summarized.
(1) The duty lawyer scheme had refused giving her legal assistance. She did not have legal assistance. This in unfair to her.
(2) The Board had pitched the threshold too high.
(3) The adjudicator was biased and the rejection of her appeal lacks completeness and evidence.
(4) The adjudicator rejected her case without even looking at the evidence.
(5) The adjudicator had made up her mind to reject her case without thoroughly considering the evidence.
DISCUSSION
13. 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).
14. The Court will bear in mind that the Board’s Decisions should be examined with rigorous examination and anxious scrutiny. Before me, she admitted that the Board’s Decision was not wrong.
15. 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.”
16. The applicant’s reasons in paragraph 12 do not assist her. The first reason fails because she was not entitled to free legal assistance at all stages of legal proceedings[1]. The other grounds are her bare assertions or personal opinions without any evidence in support. They are not valid to challenge the Board’s Decision.
17. The applicant fails to show that she has any realistic prospect of success in her 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 her application.
Dated the 11th day of February 2026
| (Allen LEE) 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 11/2/2026 Lama Prashna 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 11/2/2026 Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office Putative Respondent’s ref. no.: USM 25550 Director of Immigration Putative Interested Party’s ref. no.: RBCL 2342/24 Department of Justice, Senior Assistant Law Officer (Civil Law) (Civil Litigation Unit 2) |
Form CALL-1
[1] The Court of Appeal in Re Ahmed Syed Rafiq[2018] HKCA 178, Hon Lam & Chu JA, 26 March 2018, held:
“22. This Court has repeatedly held that neither the high standard of fairness laid down in Secretary for Security v Sakthevel Prabakar (2004) 7 HKCFAR 187 nor the judgment of FB v Director of Immigration HCAL 51 of 2007 prescribed that a CAT claimant or a claimant for BOR 2 or BOR 3 or persecution risks must have an absolute right to free legal representation at all stages of the proceedings: Re Zunariyah[2018] HKCA 14, Re Zahid Abbas[2018] HKCA 15, Re Tariq Farhan[2018] HKCA 17, and Re Lopchan Subash[2018] HKCA 37. The applicant already had the benefit of legal representation in presenting his case to the Director of Immigration. We do not find anything amiss arising from lack of legal representation in the process before the Board.”