|
HCAL 2224/2020
[2025] HKCFI 4885
IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST No 2224 of 2020
| BETWEEN |
|
|
| |
Gurdev Singh |
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;
Order by Deputy High Court Judge (Non-refoulement Claims) Philips Wong:
The application for leave to apply for judicial review be dismissed.
Observations for the Applicant:
Introduction
1. By Form 86 filed on 6 November 2020 (the “Form”), the Applicant applied for leave to apply for judicial review (the “Leave Application”) against the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office (the “Board”) dated 21 December 2018 (the “Board’s Decision”).
2. The Applicant requested an oral hearing for the application. The hearing took place on 1 September 2025 (the “Hearing”) and the Applicant attended in person.
Discussion
3. The Board’s Decision in question was a letter issued by the Board to the Applicant in response to the Applicant’s application dated 19 December 2018 (the “Withdrawal Application”) to withdraw his Notice of Appeal/Petition dated 10 May 2018 (the “Appeal”). The hyperlink to the Board’s Decision[1] is included below for reference.
4. In the Board’s Decision, the Board stated that it was satisfied that the Withdrawal Application was freely sought, and that the Applicant understood the consequences of the withdrawal. The Board was also satisfied that there was good reason for the Withdrawal Application, namely that the Applicant considered it safe to return to India. Accordingly, the Board allowed the application and confirmed the withdrawal of the Appeal. The Board further stated that the Appeal had been disposed of and finally determined by the Board.
5. The above was also confirmed by the Applicant at the Hearing. The Applicant indicated that at the time he thought that all the problems in his country had been sorted out, and that was why he made the Withdrawal Application.
6. As the Board was effectively granting the Applicant’s Withdrawal Application in the Board’s Decision, I fail to see how the Applicant can now challenge such decision. In fact, the Applicant appears to accept that the Board’s Decision was correctly decided. The Applicant now simply wants to re-open his case as he alleges that there has been change of circumstances in his country – the Applicant alleged at the Hearing that his girlfriend was killed by her family, and that his “enemies” visited his (or his family’s) home with gunshots sometimes. The Applicant further repeated his case put forward before the Director of Immigration (the “Director”) and the Board at the Hearing, and said he wants to stay in Hong Kong until after the election in India in 2027.
7. Given the circumstances and the Applicant’s position as stated at the Hearing, the Leave Application is clearly misconceived. The Applicant is not alleging that the Board’s Decision was erroneous. In fact, the Board’s Decision was plainly correctly decided. The grounds stated on the Form are simply inapplicable. If the Applicant considers that there has been change of circumstances, he should have made an appropriate application to the Director.
8. Lastly, I should also add that the present Leave Application was filed substantially out of time and there has been no application for extension of time. There has equally been no explanation for the substantial delay. However, in the light of what has been stated above, the Leave Application would have been refused in any event even if it was made within time.
9. I am satisfied that the Applicant’s intended challenge of the Board’s Decision is plainly not arguable and with no realistic prospects of success.
Conclusion
10. In the premises, I make an order that the Leave Application be dismissed.
Dated the 17th day of October 2025.
| |
(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 17/10/2025
Gurdev Singh
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 17/10/2025
Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office
Putative Respondent’s ref. no.:
BOR 1142/18/5/6/IN282
Director of Immigration
Putative Interested Party’s ref. no.:
RBCZ 9001062/17 (Formerly RBCZ/2897/09 – T7S74)
Department of Justice,
Senior Assistant Law Officer
(Civil Law)
(Civil Litigation Unit 2) |
Form CALL-1
[1] https://legalref.judiciary.hk/doc/judg/html/vetted/other/en/2020/HCAL002224_2020_files/the_Board's_Decision.pdf
|