Mandip Singh v. Torture Claims Appeal Board

Case No.HCAL 988/2021[2026] HKCFI 549

Court

High Court CFI

Date28 Jan 2026

Judge—

Case Document

100%

HCAL 988/2021

[2026] HKCFI 549

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST NO 988 OF 2021

BETWEEN
	Mandip Singh	Applicant
	and
	Torture Claims Appeal Board	Putative
		Respondent
	and
	Director of Immigration	Putative
		Interested Party

Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review

NOTIFICATION of the Judge’s decision (Order 53, rule 3)

Following:

consideration of the documents only; or

consideration of the documents and oral submissions by the applicant or counsel in open court;

Order by Deputy High Court Judge Michael WONG:

1. On this court’s own motion, “Director of Immigration” be added as the putative interested party.

2. The applicant’s application for leave to apply for judicial review be dismissed.

Observations for the applicant:

The Leave Application

1.By way of Form 86 dated and filed on 13 July 2021, the applicant applied for leave to apply for judicial review (“the Leave Application”) in respect of the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board (“the Board”) dated 7 July 2021 (“the Board’s Decision”).

2.The Board found that the applicant’s claims for non-refoulement protection were not made out on any of the applicable grounds under the Unified Screening Mechanism. Hence, the Board confirmed the decision of the Director of Immigration (“the Director”) dated 24 October 2017.

Amendment

3.The applicant did not name any putative interested party in Form 86, when the Director should be so named.

4.Thus, this court makes an order on its own motion to add “Director of Immigration” as the putative interested party.

The applicant’s case

5.The applicant claimed for non-refoulement protection because if returned to India, false cases would be filed against him and he would be tortured by the police, as he had been falsely accused of the murder of politically well-connected individuals in India.

Change of the applicant’s status

6.By a letter dated 9 January 2026, the Director informed this court that the applicant has been granted permission to stay in Hong Kong.

Discussion

7.As the applicant has been granted permission to stay in Hong Kong, it is clear that he no longer needs non-refoulement protection.

8.Thus, the Leave Application no longer serves any practical purpose, and it is otiose and pointless to consider the merits of the Leave Application.

9.It is well established that the court may exercise discretion not to grant a remedy on judicial review if it would serve no practical purpose, where it may have become otiose or pointless to grant a remedy because the relevant detriment to the applicant has been removed (see AW v Director of Immigration and William Lam, CACV 63 of 2015).

10.In the premises, this court exercises its discretion not to grant any remedy to the applicant and the Leave Application ought to be dismissed.

Conclusion

11.For reasons aforesaid, the Leave Application is dismissed.

Dated the 28^th day of January 2026

(Irene 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 his 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/Handed to the applicant/the applicant’s solicitors on: 28 January 2026 Applicant’s ref. no: Nil		Sent/Handed 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: 28 January 2026 Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office Putative respondent’s ref. no.: USM 8976/17/10/306/IN1694 Director of Immigration Putative interested party’s ref. no.: QA T/C 1721/17 (Formerly RBCZ 11084/15) QA T/C 286/12 (formerly as RBCZ 148/12) Department of Justice, Senior Assistant Law Officer (Civil Law) (Civil Litigation Unit 2)

Form CALL-1

Cites 1 case

Cases cited in this judgment

Aw v. Director of Immigration and Another

CACV 63/2015 · Court of Appeal

03 Nov 2015

Full analysis