|
HCAL 2252/2020
[2025] HKCFI 4717
IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST No. 2252 of 2020
|
BETWEEN
|
| |
Lakhvir 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 documents only; or |
| |
consideration of documents and Applicant being present in open court; |
Order by Deputy High Court Judge K.W. Lung:
Leave to apply for Judicial Review be struck out.
Observations for the Applicant:
THE APPLICATION
1.The applicant’s application for leave to apply for judicial review of the Director’s Decision dated 12 October 2020 (“the Director’s Decision”) is struck out for reasons below:
a. The applicant admitted before the Court that the Director’s Decision setting out the facts that he had made 3 applications for torture claim and he had withdrawn them shortly after he made the applications. The Director’s Decision advised him that since he had withdrawn his claim, no further action would be taken. The applicant further admitted that he had not given his statement of his case to the immigration officer.
b. On the above facts as the applicant admitted, the Director was correct to tell him that the Immigration Department would not take any further action for his claim.
c. The applicant should have taken the Director’s Decision to the Torture Claims Appeal Board (“the Board”) before making judicial review application to the High Court. He further admitted that he had not appealed the Director’s Decision to the Torture Claims Appeal Board. This is an abuse of the administrative structure of the judicial process, as held by the Court of Appeal in Re: Moshsin Ali [2018] HKCA 549, Hon Lam VP and McWalters JA, 24 August 2018
“45. … the decision by the board will supersede the decision of the immigration officer and will represent the final decision on the claim at the end of its processing. … the decision of the immigration officer is not a decision that, within this administrative structure, is susceptible to judicial review once an appeal to the board is pursued by a claimant.”
d. Accordingly, this application is struck out.
Dated the 15th day of October 2025
| |
(M.O. WONG)(Ms)
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 15/10/2025
Lakhvir 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 15/10/2025
Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office
Putative Respondent’s ref. no.:
-
Director of Immigration
Putative Interested Party’s ref. no.:
RBCZ 2001006/14 (Formerly RBCZ 78/07)
Department of Justice,
Senior Assistant Law Officer
(Civil Law)
(Civil Litigation Unit 2) |
Form CALL-1
|