BabelCite

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

Read the full judgment text of HCAL 1209/2021 on BabelCite. This High Court CFI judgment was delivered on 10 March 2026.

1. By a Form 86 filed on 30 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 9 July 2021 ( “the Board’s Decision” ), which was made pursuant to a petition/appeal from the decision of the Director of Immigration ( “DI” ) dated 28 December 2020. A copy of the Board’s Decision can be seen by the following hyperlink [1] .

Cited by 1 case

Case No.HCAL 1209/2021[2026] HKCFI 1323
Court
High Court CFI
Date10 Mar 2026
Judge—
Case Document
100%Judiciary

HCAL 1209/2021

[2026] HKCFI 1323

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST No. 1209 of 2021

BETWEEN
  Sidhu Inderpal 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 Applicant’s oral submissions in open court;

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

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

Observations for the Applicant:

1.By a Form 86 filed on 30 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 9 July 2021 (“the Board’s Decision”), which was made pursuant to a petition/appeal from the decision of the Director of Immigration (“DI”) dated 28 December 2020. 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 family dispute between him and his wife’s family members opposing to the marriage.  Physical violence was alleged. After an oral hearing, the Board came to the finding that the Applicant’s factual account was not credible or reliable.  The Board found no real risk of ill-treatment under the applicable grounds, and dismissed the Applicant’s appeal/petition against DI’s first tier decision.  In any event, the Board also found that the dispute was completely private (and thus risk of persecution did not apply anyway), there was available State protection and internal relocation alternative.

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.This application for leave to apply for leave is thus 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

Sidhu Inderpal 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 17520/21/1/16/IN3222

Director of Immigration
Putative Interested Party’s ref. no.:
QA T/C 544/20 (formerly RBCZ 10471/20) (T2S4)

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


Form CALL-1

 

 

 

Cited by 1 case

Other judgments that cite this case

Re: SIDHU INDERPAL SINGH
Court of Appeal22 Jul 2026