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

Case No.HCAL 3608/2019[2025] HKCFI 1381

Court

High Court CFI

Date09 Apr 2025

Judge—

Case Document

100%

HCAL 3608/2019

[2025] HKCFI 1381

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST No. 3608 of 2019

BETWEEN
	Balwinder 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:

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

Observations for the Applicant:

1.By Form 86 filed on 4 December 2019, the Applicant applies for leave to apply for judicial review (“the Leave Application”) of the direction of the Torture Claims Appeal Board/ Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office (“the Board”) dated 5 December 2018 that his appeal/petition be withdrawn and the decision of the Director of Immigration dated 7 March 2018 (“the Director’s Decision”), which rejected his non-refoulement claim on all applicable grounds under the Unified Screening Mechanism (USM), be confirmed (“the Direction”).

2.At the oral hearing, the Applicant has indicated that he would no longer wish to pursue the Leave Application and would like to return to India. I accede to the Applicant’s request and accordingly make an order that the Leave Application herein be dismissed: see Re Manik Md Mahamudun Nabi [2022] HKCA 471 at §19.

3.In view of this, even though I am not required to make any adjudication of the merits of the case, I find it both necessary and appropriate to state a few words for the record to express my criticism of the Applicant’s conduct. Based on what is before me, it is evident that the Applicant has taken out the Leave Application being fully aware that the Board made the Direction on his own application for withdrawal:

(1)   By letter dated 29 November 2018 to the Board, the Applicant applied for withdrawal of his appeal/petition against the Director’s Decision.

(2)   The Board had considered his application having regard to all the available information placed before it.

(3)   The Board was satisfied that his application was freely sought, and that he understood the consequences of the withdrawal.

(4)   The Board was also satisfied that there was good reason for his withdrawal of the appeal/petition, namely, that he considered it safe to return to India.

(5)   The Board had therefore given the Direction, further stating that his appeal/petition was disposed of and finally determined and no other action would be taken by the Board.

4.In these circumstances, the Leave Application must be considered entirely unmeritorious, and the Applicant has also since requested its withdrawal. Such conduct and behavior of the Applicant are utterly abusive, wasting both judicial time and resources that could have been far better deployed and utilized.

Dated the 9^th day of April 2025

(Thomas Chan)
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 9/4/2025 Balwinder 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 9/4/2025 Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office Putative Respondent’s ref. no.: USM 10835/18/3/287/IN2074 Director of Immigration Putative Interested Party’s ref. no.: QA T/C 233/18 (formerly RBCZ/11372/15) Department of Justice, Senior Assistant Law Officer (Civil Law) (Civil Litigation Unit 2)

Form CALL-1

Cites 1 case

Cases cited in this judgment

Re Manik Md Mahamudun Nabi

[2022] HKCA 471 · Court of Appeal

01 Apr 2022

Full analysis