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

Case No.HCAL 2467/2020[2026] HKCFI 99

Court

High Court CFI

Date08 Jan 2026

Judge—

Case Document

100%

HCAL 2467/2020

[2026] HKCFI 99

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST NO 2467 OF 2020

BETWEEN
	Karmjit Singh	Applicant
	and
	The 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) Vincent Lung:

1. Form 86 be amended, naming only the Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non‑refoulement Claims Petition Office as the Putative Respondent and only the Director of Immigration be named as the Putative Interested Party.

2. The application for leave to apply for judicial review out of time be dismissed.

Observations for the Applicant:

Introduction

1.By a Form 86 filed on 18 December 2020 (the “Form 86”), the Applicant applied for leave to apply for judicial review against the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board (the “TCAB”) dated 5 January 2017, which accepted the withdrawal of and dismissed the Applicant’s appeal / petition against the decision of the Director of Immigration (the “DOI”) dated 19 October 2015.

2.I amend the Form 86 on my own motion to name only the TCAB as the putative respondent and only the DOI as the putative interested party.

3.The Applicant requested for a hearing of this application which he attended. He informed me that he would wish to withdraw the present application since he had already obtained residence in Hong Kong. This is the same stance expressed in the Applicant’s letter to the Court dated 10 October 2025.

4.I accede to the withdrawal. As explained in Re Manik Md Mahamudun Nabi [2022] HKCA 471 at [19(1)], there was nothing outstanding in the action. The application (which was made out of time) is therefore dismissed.

Dated the 8^th day of January 2026

(Gladys 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 08/01/2026 Karmjit 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 08/01/2026 Torture Claims Appeal Board Putative Respondent’s ref. no.: USM 2490/15/11/2/IN524 Director of Immigration Putative Interested Party’s ref. no.: QA T/C 806/15 (formerly as RBCZ 759/12) 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