KULDIP SINGH v. HONG KONG SAR GOVERNMENT AND ANOTHER

HCAL 268/2026

[2026] HKCFI 768

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST NO 268 OF 2026

________________________

________________

__________________

D E C I S I O N

__________________

A.  Introduction

1.  By his Form 86 dated 27 January 2026, the Applicant seeks leave to apply for judicial review so as to challenge the Deportation Order made against him dated 12 December 2025.

2.  Having considered the materials provided with the application, I am satisfied that it is appropriate to deal with this matter on the papers.

3.  This is my Decision.

B.  Prior Proceedings

4.  However, before turning to the current application it may be helpful contextually to identify that the Applicant has previously filed applications in:

(1)  HCAL 504/2017: This was an application for leave to apply for judicial review of a decision made by the Torture Claims Appeal Board rejecting the Applicant’s non-refoulement claim. The application was dismissed on 7 June 2018.

(2)  HCAL 2280/2020: This was an application for leave to apply for judicial review of the decision of the Director of Immigration refusing the Applicant’s ‘subsequent claim’ for non-refoulement protection. The application was dismissed on 17 October 2025.

(3)  HACL 40/2026: This is an application for writ of habeas corpus, fixed for hearing on 6 March 2026.

5.  From the papers filed with this application, it seems that the above proceedings reflect that (1) the Applicant’s prior non-refoulement claims have been dismissed, (2) the Applicant is currently in immigration detention, and (3) the Applicant was likely detained pending consideration of the making of a deportation order, and subsequently detained pending his removal/deportation from Hong Kong pursuant to the Deportation Order which was made. He remains in detention.

C.  The Application

6.  The Form 86 does not itself identify either the relief sought nor any grounds on which that relief is sought.

7.  However, together with the Form 86, the Applicant filed a supporting affirmation, with a copy of the Deportation Order, and a handwritten attachment. The body of the affirmation simply states:

I would like to apply judicial review because I am not satisfied with the decision made by the Secretary for Security. Please accept my request. Thank you very much. Attached “A” 5 pages.

8.  The Deportation Order identifies that it was made pursuant to section 20(1)(a) of the Immigration Ordinance Cap 115, on the basis that the Applicant is a person who is not a Hong Kong permanent resident, and has been found guilty in Hong Kong of an offence punishable with imprisonment for not less than two years, and because the Permanent Secretary for Security exercises the powers conferred under section 20(1)(a) to require the Applicant to leave Hong Kong and to prohibit him from being in Hong Kong at any time thereafter.

9.  The attachment “A” says the following (in my summary of it):

(1)  The Applicant is an Indian national, and came to Hong Kong on 4 April 2012.

(2)  On 30 May 2013, he was convicted of illegally possessing the identity card of another person (though he says he either was, or was found, not guilty) and breach of condition of stay / overstaying.

(3)  In 2014, he met a Hong Kong permanent resident (“HKPR”) who later became his wife (“Wife”).

(4)  The Applicant and the Wife married in 2018.

(5)  The Deportation Order was made on 12 December 2025.

(6)  However, the Applicant says he cannot go back to his home country for various reasons.

(7)  First, because he is married to his HKPR Wife, and there is a stepson who is just “13-14 years old”, meaning he is still needing guidance from the Applicant and the Wife.

(8)  Secondly, the Wife is very sick, suffering from cancer and needs assistance in taking care of the home budget and of the home, until the Applicant gets a Hong Kong identity card.

(9)  Thirdly, information from his home country India, given by his friends and relatives, continues to show it is not safe for him to return to India if he wants “to live long”.

(10)  He is appealing to the Secretary for Security and the Court for “another chance and not to give [him] Deportation”.

(11)  The Deportation Order should not apply to him, because his imprisonment was for less than two years.

(12)  He promises not to make trouble, and will report from time to time to the Immigration Centre.

10.  By way of conclusion, the Applicant requests that he wants to live with his Wife for ever, and requests not to be given Deportation Order.

11.  Subsequently, the Applicant has sent to the Court two further handwritten letters dated 28 and 30 January 2026. Though they are not in the form of an affirmation and not properly filed, I have read the letters. In summary, it repeats some of the procedural history of the previous applications made by the Applicant, and it repeats his reasons for wishing to stay in Hong Kong (mainly relating to his Wife, and which I have already set out above). He also mentions the habeas corpus application (which he describes as asking to be allowed to be granted “bail-out”), and suggests that he must have “one running case” before the Court which is the present application HCAL 268/2026. He even says that if he does not have “any running case in Hong Kong”, then he cannot live in Hong Kong. He also asks for further time within which to provide further documents and explanation. It does so on the basis that he is in immigration detention and it is hard to explain about is wanting to stay in Hong Kong, and to collect all the documents relating to his cases.

D.  Consideration of Merits

12.  The starting point is that an application – including one made by an applicant acting in person, without legal representation – should be complete when it is filed. Applications for leave to apply for judicial review do not run on some basis where the applicant can gradually provide documents and information over a period of time chosen by the applicant. I see no reason to grant any extension of time for the provision of additional documents or information.

13.  In any event, the kind of documents and explanations he appears to want to offer, if given further time, do not seem to me to be relevant to the current proceedings. The present application is to seek leave to apply for judicial review to challenge the Deportation Order made against him. That is not the opportunity to rehearse either what has happened in previous proceedings, or the reasons why he wants to stay in Hong Kong.

14.  Secondly, the failure to have identified on the Form 86 the relief sought, and the grounds upon which that relief is sought, is in breach of the mandatory requirements under Rules of the High Court Order 53 rule 3(2). But, even taking into account the matters in or attached to the affirmation (and the further letters), I do not accept that the Applicant has identified any sufficient basis for the grant of leave to apply for judicial review.

15.  It is trite that, for an applicant to be given leave to apply for judicial review, the applicant must identify reasonably arguable public law grounds of review with a realistic prospect of success.

16.  In this case, the Applicant has not identified any public law grounds of review at all, let alone any with a realistic prospect of success.

17.  Insofar as the Applicant seems to suggest that he is not able to be subject to a Deportation Order because the period of imprisonment served by him is less than two years, that is an error. The power under section 20(1)(a) relates to a person who is not a Hong Kong permanent resident who has been found guilty of an offence punishable with imprisonment for not less than two years. There is no suggestion that the Applicant was not convicted of such an offence (even if the actual imprisonment served was for less than two years). Therefore, there is no reasonably arguable basis that the making of the Deportation Order was unlawful.

18.  Nor does the Applicant make any complaint as to any procedural impropriety or public law unfairness in the process of the making of the Deportation Order.

19.  The points made by the Applicant are essentially either (1) akin to a claim seeking non-refoulement protection by re-arguing his non-refoulement claim, or (2) humanitarian or compassionate matters. However:

(1)  The Applicant’s non-refoulement claim has already been rejected – both on its original claim and on a ‘subsequent claim’ – and applications for leave to apply for judicial review relating to those rejections have been dismissed. This Court will not entertain these matters again.

(2)  It is trite that the Director of Immigration and the Secretary for Security are not required to take humanitarian or compassionate matters into account in making decisions relating to immigration, removal or deportation matters. Further, if they do take such matters into account, the weight to be given to such matters is a matter for the decision-maker, subject only to interference by the Court on irrationality grounds. However, irrationality is a high hurdle to establish, and nothing in the Applicant’s materials identify any reasonably arguable basis of establishing that.

20.  Further, in so far as the Applicant is requesting the Court itself to decide whether he should be subject to a Deportation Order or be deported, that is not the role of the Court exercising its supervisory judicial review jurisdiction.

21.  Lastly, the suggestion in his letter that this application is brought so that the Applicant has a “running case in Hong Kong”, so as to seek to ensure that he can remain in Hong Kong, seems to me merely to identify abuse of the Court’s process.

E.  Result

22.  The Applicant has failed to identify any reasonably arguable public law ground of review with any realistic prospect of success. Indeed, from what the Applicant himself has said in his letter, it seems to me that the very purpose of bringing his proceedings is in reality at least in part an abuse of the process of the Court.

23.  In the circumstances, his application is dismissed. I make no order as to costs.