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

Case No.HCAL 1805/2020[2025] HKCFI 4463

Court

High Court CFI

Date29 Sep 2025

Judge—

Case Document

100%

HCAL 1805/2020

[2025] HKCFI 4463

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST No. 1805 of 2020

BETWEEN
	Satwinder 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) Martin Wong:

1.  The Applicant’s Form 86 be amended to name the DOI as the putative interested party; and

2.  Leave to withdraw the application for leave to apply for judicial review be granted; and

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

Observations for the Applicant:

Introduction

1.By a Form 86 filed on 10 September 2020, the Applicant applied for leave to apply for judicial review of the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board (the “TCAB”) dated 31 August 2020 (the “TCAB Decision”), which affirmed the decision by the Director of Immigration (the “DOI”) dated 8 November 2018 in refusing the Applicant’s non‑refoulement protection claim. He named the TCAB as the proposed respondent and named himself as an interested party.

2.I amended the Form 86 on my own motion to name the DOI as the putative interested party instead.

3.The Applicant requested for an oral hearing and attended the same.

Withdrawal

4.Shortly before the scheduled hearing on 3 September 2025, the Applicant filed an affirmation on 1 September 2025 to make an ex-parte application to discontinue the Form 86 application, for reason that he had since obtained HKID card.

5.At the hearing on 3 September 2025 I confirmed with the Applicant that he wished to withdraw the Form 86 application.

6.There is nothing to indicate that the Applicant’s decision to withdraw his Form 86 application was made other than out of his own free will and there is nothing outstanding in this action, I therefore accede to the Applicant’s request and formally dismiss this application.

Dated the 29^th day of September 2025

(Cheung Ho Yat, Annson)
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 29 September 2025 Satwinder 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 29 September 2025 Torture Claims Appeal Board/ Non-Refoulement Claims Petition Office Putative Respondent’s ref. no.: USM 14453/18/11/296/IN2853 Director of Immigration Putative Interested Party’s ref. no.: QA T/C 3942/18 (formerly RBCZ 11865/16) Department of Justice, Senior Assistant Law Officer (Civil Law) (Civil Litigation Unit 2)

Form CALL-1