BHATTI AMANDEEP v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE [Decision on Leave Application]
HTML content
HCAL 124/2025
[2025] HKCFI 4287
IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST No. 124 of 2025
| BETWEEN | ||
| Bhatti Amandeep | Applicant | |
| and | ||
| Torture Claims Appeal Board/ 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 documents only; or consideration of documents and Applicant being present 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 24 December 2024 of the Torture Claims Appeal Board (“the Board’s Decision”), dismissing the appeal against the Director’s Decision as described below.
2. The applicant asked for a hearing. He appeared before the Court on 3 September 2025.
The applicant
3. The applicant is a national of India. He is an illegal immigrant, having attempted to enter Hong Kong as a visitor on 5 September 2024 and was refused entry by the Immigration Department. He lodged a non-refoulement claim with the Director of Immigration (“the Director”) on the basis that, if refouled, he will be harmed or killed by 2 men (“the gangsters”) because of personal grudges.
4. According to the applicant, there was a car crash incident in India in June 2024 where a motorcycle with the Gangsters drove on the wrong lane and hit the front passenger side of the applicant’s vehicle. Afterwards, the applicant received a threatening note that they would kill him. There were further death threat phone calls in mid-July 2024, which led to the applicant relocating to Jammu and Srinagar. He finally chose to come to Hong Kong.
5. Details of his claim are set out in the Board’s Decision. See hyperlink https://legalref.judiciary.hk/doc/judg/html/vetted/other/en/2025/HCAL000124_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 Notice of Decision dated 30 October 2024 (“the Director’s Decision”), the Director dismissed the applicant’s claim because it was unsubstantiated. Besides, state protection is available and internal relocation is viable, which will mitigate or neutralize the applicable risks.
The Board’s Decision
8. The applicant appealed the Director’s Decision to the Board. On 9 December 2024, the Board conducted an oral hearing for his appeal. The applicant had given oral evidence and answered the Board’s questions.
9. Having considered the evidence, the Board found the facts below.
(1) The applicant’s evidence was incredible. [41]
(2) State protection will be available to him. [45]
10. For the reasons above, the Board dismissed his appeal and affirmed the Director’s Decision.
Application for leave to apply for judicial review of the Board’s Decision
11. The applicant has filed Form 86 dated 7 January 2025 for leave to apply for judicial review of the Board’s Decision.
12. In support of his application, the applicant attached a statement of grounds, which I shall summarize below.
(1) The Board’s Decision is wrong.
(2) The Board did not consider right to life issue.
(3) The Board did not consider state acquiescence.
(4) The Board placed too much weight on the country of origin information without regard to his personal background.
(5) The Board did not consider his arguments.
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 Decision should be examined with rigorous examination and anxious scrutiny. Before me, he said that his complaint was that the Board did not believe his evidence. I asked him about the statement of grounds attached to Form 86 with his signature. He said that it was prepared by someone else. He did not give him the instructions and he simply signed on the statement. He said that he had no idea of the contents himself.
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. In view of the applicant’s admission that those grounds under paragraph 12 were not his instructions, those grounds are insignificant. The applicant has raised no valid ground to challenge the Board’s findings. The assessment of the evidence is within the province of the Board.
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.
Dated the 23rd day of September 2025
| (M.O. WONG)(Ms) 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 23/9/2025 Bhatti Amandeep 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 23/9/2025 Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office Putative Respondent’s ref. no.: USM 24952 Director of Immigration Putative Interested Party’s ref. no.: QA T/C 2280/24 (Formerly RBCZ 5001977/24) Department of Justice, Senior Assistant Law Officer (Civil Law) (Civil Litigation Unit 2) |
Form CALL-1