BabelCite

Hardeep Singh v. Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office

Read the full judgment text of HCAL 1338/2021 on BabelCite. This High Court CFI judgment was delivered on 10 March 2026.

1. By a Form 86 filed on 24 September 2021, the Applicant sought leave for judicial review of the decision of the Non-Refoulement Claims Petition Office [1] ( “the Board” ) dated 7 May 2021 ( “the Board’s Decision” ), which was made pursuant to a petition/appeal from the decision of the Director of Immigration ( “DI” ) dated 9 January 2019.  A copy of the Board’s Decision can be seen by the following hyperlink [2] .

Case No.HCAL 1338/2021[2026] HKCFI 1325
Court
High Court CFI
Date10 Mar 2026
Judge—
Case Document
100%Judiciary

HCAL 1338/2021

[2026] HKCFI 1325

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST No. 1338 of 2021

BETWEEN
  Hardeep Singh Applicant
  and  
  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 the Applicant’s being absent 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 24 September 2021, the Applicant sought leave for judicial review of the decision of the Non-Refoulement Claims Petition Office[1] (“the Board”) dated 7 May 2021 (“the Board’s Decision”), which was made pursuant to a petition/appeal from the decision of the Director of Immigration (“DI”) dated 9 January 2019.  A copy of the Board’s Decision can be seen by the following hyperlink[2]. 

2.According to the Board’s Decision, the non-refoulement claim of the Applicant, an Indian, was based on an alleged conflict between him as a supporter of a political party called “PPP” and the leaders of two other political parties known as “SAD” and “Congress Party”.  A number of incidents in which he was threatened or his friends being assaulted/killed were mentioned in support of the claim.

3.After an oral hearing, the Board did not accept that the Applicant was a supporter of PPP on reasons, amongst others, that he demonstrated very little knowledge about the development of PPP.  Moreover, he confirmed during the hearing that he came to Hong Kong originally for the purpose of sightseeing, and he only decided to seek non-refoulement protection after landing Hong Kong. The Board considered that a person in fear of being harmed or killed would not have prioritized sightseeing over the search for a foreign country for protection.  

4.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 case. 

5.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

Hardeep 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

Non-Refoulement Claims Petition Office
Putative Respondent’s ref. no.:
USM 15399/19/1/272/IN3046

Director of Immigration
Putative Interested Party’s ref. no.:
QA T/C 1010/13 (T6S30)
(formerly RBCZ 351/13)
QA T/C 5030/18 (formerly RBCZ 2002687/14)

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


Form CALL-1

 


[1]   Although the Applicant named the Torture Claims Appeal Board as his putative respondent, from the date of the decision sought to be reviewed and a copy of the decision attached, it is clear the decision was instead made by the Board as the Applicant’s torture claim had been separately assessed and rejected in 2013 without further appeal before the unified screening mechanism came into operation.  In these circumstances, I considered the Applicant having named the Board as the putative respondent.

[2]   https://legalref.judiciary.hk/doc/judg/html/vetted/other/en/2021/HCAL001338_2021_files/the_Board's_Decision.pdf