BabelCite

Chumber Ramdas Singh v. Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office

Case No.HCAL 3560/2019[2025] HKCFI 846
Court
High Court CFI
Date10 Mar 2025
Judge—
Case Document
100%

HCAL 3560/2019

[2025] HKCFI 846

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST No 3560 of 2019

BETWEEN
  Chumber Ramdas 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:

    consideration of the documents only;            or
   consideration of the documents and oral submissions by the Applicant in open court;

Order by Deputy High Court Judge (Non-refoulement Claims) Teresa Wu made on 4 February 2025:

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

Observations for the Applicant:

1.By Form 86 filed on 2 December 2019, the Applicant applies for leave to apply for judicial review of the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office dated 21 November 2019 (“the Board’s Decision”) confirming the decision of the Director of Immigration dated 31 May 2018, which rejected the Applicant’s non-refoulement claim on all applicable grounds under the Unified Screening Mechanism (USM).

2.The material facts of this case, including the Applicant’s personal background, his case and claim, including the incidents relied on by him to allege that he would be ill-treated or killed in India by his enemy, Davinder Singh and the political affiliates in Akali Dal Party, by reason of his support for the rival Congress Party, and the immigration and procedural history etc., have been set out comprehensively in the Board’s Decision[1].

3.At the oral hearing, the Applicant indicates that he would like to ‘close’ his case now, claiming that his ‘problem’ has been resolved. He has expressed his wish to return with proper translation and voluntarily, not under threat, coercion or as a result of other inappropriate means, etc.

4.I accede to the Applicant’s request and make an order that the application herein for leave be dismissed: see Re Manik Md Mahamudun Nabi [2022] HKCA 471 at §19.

Dated the 10th day of March 2025

  (Chung Lai Fan, Christine)
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 10 March 2025

Chumber Ramdas 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 10 March 2025

Torture Claims Appeal Board/
Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office
Putative Respondent’s ref. no.:
USM 11912/18/6/91/IN2374

Director of Immigration
Putative Interested Party’s ref. no.:
QA T/C 920/18 (formerly RBCZ/13323/16)(T8S21)

Department of Justice,
Senior Assistant Law Officer
(Civil Law)
(Civil Litigation Unit 2)


Form CALL-1