BabelCite

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

Read the full judgment text of HCAL 1113/2021 on BabelCite. This High Court CFI judgment was delivered on 10 March 2026.

1. By a Form 86 filed on 9 August 2021, the Applicant sought leave for judicial review of the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-Refoulement Claims Petition Office ( “the Board” ) dated 3 November 2020 ( “the Board’s Decision” ), which was made pursuant to a petition/appeal from the decision of the Director of Immigration ( “DI” ) dated 27 March 2019.  A copy of the Board’s Decision can be seen by the following hyperlink [1] .

Case No.HCAL 1113/2021[2026] HKCFI 1322
Court
High Court CFI
Date10 Mar 2026
Judge—
Case Document
100%Judiciary

HCAL 1113/2021

[2026] HKCFI 1322

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST No. 1113 of 2021

BETWEEN
  Manpreet Singh Applicant
  and  
  Torture Claims Appeal Board / Putative
  Non-Refoulement Claims Petition Office 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 the Applicant’s oral submissions in open court;

Order by Deputy High Court Judge (Non-Refoulement Claims) Lewis Law:

1.   Extension of time to file Form 86 be refused; and

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

Observations for the Applicant:

1.By a Form 86 filed on 9 August 2021, the Applicant sought leave for judicial review of the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-Refoulement Claims Petition Office (“the Board”) dated 3 November 2020 (“the Board’s Decision”), which was made pursuant to a petition/appeal from the decision of the Director of Immigration (“DI”) dated 27 March 2019.  A copy of the Board’s Decision can be seen by the following hyperlink[1].

2.According to the Board’s Decision, the non-refoulement claim of the Applicant, an Indian, was based on a land dispute between him and an uncle. Physical violence and political differences between him and his uncle were alleged.  The Board arranged a hearing but the Applicant was absent.  Based on the answers given by the Applicant in the non‑refoulement claim form and screening interview received by DI, the Board came to the finding that the Applicant’s factual account was superficial, vague and lacking in details. Moreover, the harm alleged, even if accepted to be true, would tend to show that the dispute between the Applicant and his uncle arose out of the land dispute but not difference in political opinion.  The Board found no real risk under the applicable grounds shown, and dismissed the Applicant’s appeal/petition against DI’s first tier decision.

3.The Applicant has not set out any grounds of judicial review in the Form 86 or supporting affirmation.  I have considered the Board’s Decision vigorously, but am unable to detect any reasonable argument that the decision was tainted by any illegality, irrationality or procedural impropriety.  In my view, the Board has conducted an anxious scrutiny of the facts of the case and assessed intensely its factual issues. 

4.I also note that the Form 86 was filed more than 3 months after the Board’s Decision.  Owing to the lack of merits and explanation of delay, extension of time to file Form 86 is refused and this application for leave to apply for leave is dismissed.

 

 

Dated the 10th day of March 2026

  (Teresa Ng)
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 10 March 2026

Manpreet 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 10 March 2026

Torture Claims Appeal Board/ Non-Refoulement Claims Petition Office
Putative Respondent’s ref. no.:
USM 15794/19/4/52/IN3081

Director of Immigration
Putative Interested Party’s ref. no.:
QA T/C 137/19 (formerly RBCZ 11450/15)

Department of Justice,
Senior Assistant Law Officer
(Civil Law)
(Civil Litigation Unit 2)


Form CALL-1