SATNAM SINGH v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

HCAL 980/2020

[2025] HKCFI 4067

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST No 980 of 2020

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;

1.  There shall be no extension of time for the applicant to file the application for leave to apply for judicial review out of time.

2.  The application for leave to apply for judicial review be dismissed.

Observations for the Applicant:

Introduction

1.  By a “Notice of application for leave to apply for judicial review” in the prescribed Form 86 filed on 22 May 2020, the applicant applied for leave to apply for judicial review (“Leave Application”).  The intended judicial review was against the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board / the Non-Refoulement Claims Petition Office (“Board”) dated 28 November 2018 (“Board’s Decision”) accepting the applicant’s request to withdraw his appeal(s) against the decisions of the Director of Immigration (“Director”) dated 15 August 2014 (“Director’s 1^st Decision”) and 17 May 2017 (“Director’s 2^nd Decision”) (collectively “Director’s Decisions”) rejecting the applicant’s non-refoulement claim on all applicable grounds.  The Board’s Decision can be viewed at the following hyperlink: -

https://legalref.judiciary.hk/doc/judg/html/vetted/other/en/2020/HCAL000980_2020_files/the_Board's_Decision.pdf

2.  The basis of the applicant’s claim was that he would be arrested and framed by police for possession of arms and drugs found in a car, and that he would also be harmed or killed by the car owner for having informed the police that the arms and drugs belonged to the owner of the car.  The Board’s reasoning and findings were set out in detail in the Board’s Decision and it is not necessary for me to repeat them.  Unless otherwise specified, I shall also adopt the Board’s abbreviations and descriptions stated in the Board’s Decision.

3.  At the applicant’s request for a hearing of the Leave Application, this court scheduled a hearing on 17 June 2025.  The applicant attended the hearing in person.  After having heard from him, this court informed him that the decision would be reserved, and be sent to his updated address.

Discussion

4.  The Leave Application operates as a ‘filtering’ process and there is no requirement or expectation to give elaborate reasons for my decision.[1]  It is sufficient to state my observations after considering the Board’s Decision and the applicant’s materials adduced.

5.  In a proper Form 86, an applicant is required to identify the grounds of judicial review clearly and succinctly[2], and further to make full and frank disclosure of all material facts to be verified by an affidavit.   

6.  In his supporting affirmation for his Form 86 and, the applicant stated that his problem in his country was not yet solved.

7.  At the hearing, this court asked the applicant whether he had any grounds he wished to submit in support of the Leave Application.  The applicant stated that he had nothing to say.

8.  In the Board’s Decision, the Board referred to the applicant’s application by letter dated 26 November 2018 to withdraw his appeal/petition against the Director’s 1^st Decision and the Director’s 2^nd Decision.  The Board stated that after having considered all the available information, it was satisfied that his application to withdraw the appeal/petition was freely sought, and that he understood the consequences of the withdrawal.  The Board therefore directed the withdrawal of the applicant’s appeal/petition, and confirmed the Director’s 1^st Decision and the Director’s 2^nd Decision.

9.  It is trite that the fact-finding role is exclusively vested with the Director and the Board, and not with this court. In the present case, upon the Board’s acceptance of the applicant’s withdrawal of the appeal against the Directors’ Decisions, the applicant’s appeal was finally determined.  Hence, the applicant’s intended challenge to the Board’s Decision is procedurally wrong.  In any event, the applicant has advanced no grounds in stating what mistake the Board had allegedly made in accepting his withdrawal application.

Whether to extend time for the late application

10.  Another matter I need to consider is the delay.  Pursuant to O 53 r 4(1) of the Rules of the High Court, an application to apply for judicial review shall be made promptly and in any event within 3 months from the date when grounds for the application first arose.  The applicant was late for 1 year and 3 months.  I consider the period of delay is lengthy and substantial.

11.  The applicant’s explanation given at court was that he had initially intended to go home.  However, he changed his mind after he made the application to the Board to withdraw the appeal against the Director’s Decisions.  It was because his family asked him not to go home yet.  He did not know what to do until when he was told by an Immigration officer to file a judicial review application in the High Court.

12.  I do not consider the applicant’s above explanation constitutes good reason for the delay.  Having regard to the long and inordinate delay without a good explanation as well as the lack of merits, I refuse to exercise my discretion to allow an extension of time for the applicant to file the Leave Application.

Orders

13.  There shall be no extension of time for the applicant to file the application for leave to apply for judicial review out of time.

14.  The application for leave to apply for judicial review be dismissed.

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

Form CALL-1