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

HCAL 2280/2020

[2026] HKCFI 2787

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST NO 2280 OF 2020

________________________

________________________

________________

D E C I S I O N

________________

1.The Applicant is a national of India. He arrived in Hong Kong on 4 April 2012. He overstayed from 26 April 2012. On 13 May 2013, the Applicant was convicted of illegally possessing the identity card of another person and for breach of condition of stay. On 19 June 2013, he was sentenced to 16 months’ imprisonment. The Applicant made a non-refoulement claim on 9 August 2013.

2.On 17 June 2016 and 2 March 2017, the Director of Immigration refused the Applicant’s non-refoulement claim. The Applicant’s subsequent appeal to the Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non‑refoulement Claims Petition Office (the “Board”) was dismissed on 24 April 2017.

3.The Applicant then made a subsequent claim for non‑refoulement protection. Such claim was refused by the Director of Immigration on 2 November 2020 (the “Director’s Decision”).

4.By Form 86 filed on 18 November 2020, the Applicant applied for leave to apply for judicial review against the Director’s Decision (the “Leave Application”). The hearing of the Leave Application took place on 1 September 2025 and the Applicant attended in person. The Applicant however indicated that he had nothing to say in respect of the Leave Application, save that he could not go back to India and that he had got married in Hong Kong.

5.By the decision dated 17 October 2025 ([2025] HKCFI 4883) (the “Court’s Decision”), this Court dismissed the Leave Application on the ground that the Applicant’s intended challenge of the Director’s Decision is not reasonably arguable with any realistic prospects of success.

6.By the Summons filed on 6 February 2026, the Applicant applied for an extension of time to appeal against the Court’s Decision, as the 14‑day period for him to file the appeal under Order 53 rule 3(4) of the Rules of the High Court had expired (the “Application”).

7.The Application was scheduled to be heard on 11 May 2026. On 25 February 2026, the Applicant wrote to the Court and requested to withdraw the Application as he had decided to go back to India. On 11 March 2026, the Immigration Department wrote to the Court and indicated that the Applicant had also written to the Department, and had requested to close all his cases and go back to India. As a result, the Department indicated that removal proceedings of the Applicant would commence. As a result, the Applicant did not attend the hearing on 11 May 2026.

8.In light of the aforesaid, there is nothing outstanding in this Action. The Application is hereby dismissed.

The applicant was unrepresented and absent.