HK CourtDB
HomeDirectoryMCP
Hong Kong CourtDB
Back to directory
2025

HARDEV SINGH v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

Related cases with same parties

  • CACV100/2026SINGH NARINDER PAL v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE
  • CACV10/2022ROBILLOS ADOLFO DE LA CRUZ v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE
  • CACV103/2021LUU THI VAN v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD /NON REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE
  • CACV103/2023ALMAS KHAWAR v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE
  • CACV103/2025COLLINS OBI v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE
  • CACV104/2019DHALI JONY v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE
  • CACV104/2023VU THI NGOC MY v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE
  • CACV105/2021DINH THI VAN 對 TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITON OFFICE
  • CACV107/2023NGUYEN THI THUY v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE
  • CACV107/2025AHMAD AQEEL v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE
  • CACV1081/2025HOANG VAN BINH v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE
  • CACV110/2021AYUB MUHAMMAD v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE
  • CACV11/2023RUPASINGHA ARACHCHIGE SHIROMA THARANGANI v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE
  • CACV112/2025NONG THI HA v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE
  • CACV113/2022SITI MULDIYATI v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE
  • CACV1151/2025ARSHDEEP SINGH v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE
  • CACV115/2022GALLEGO VALDES AUGUSTO v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE
  • CACV115/2024QUIRANTE JACKIELON DE GUZMAN v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE
  • CACV115/2025DINH KHAC KIEN v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE
  • CACV1153/2025MEGA PUSPITA SARI v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE
[2026] HKCA 92-EN-2026-02-04

HARDEV SINGH v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

HTML content

CACV 390 /2025, [2026] HKCA 92

On appeal from [2025] HKCFI 2293

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 390 OF 2025

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 240 OF 2020)

________________________

BETWEEN  
 Hardev SinghApplicant
 and
 Torture Claims Appeal Board /
Non‑refoulement Claims Petition Office
Putative Respondent
 and
 Director of ImmigrationPutative Interested Party

________________________

Before:Hon Kwan VP and Anthony Chan JA in Court
Date of Judgment:4 February 2026

________________________

J U D G M E N T

________________________

Hon Kwan VP (giving the Judgment of the Court):

Background

1.  This is an appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge Levy dated 6 June 2025 refusing to grant leave to the applicant to apply for judicial review against the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board concerning his non‑refoulement claim ([2025] HKCFI 2293). 

Grounds of appeal

2.  In the notice of appeal filed on 11 June 2025, the applicant stated that his grounds of appeal are that the gravity of his circumstances has not been weighed or realised by the putative respondents and he should be given an opportunity to plead his case properly. 

3.  The applicant initially gave a written confirmation indicating that he would like the appeal to be disposed of by oral hearing.  He subsequently filed a request for dismissal of appeal on 10 November 2025.  We therefore found that the appeal can be dismissed on the basis of his request for dismissal.  We consider that it becomes unnecessary to dispose of the appeal by oral hearing.

4.  In any event, we also take the view that the appeal is without merit as the applicant’s grounds of appeal are just bare assertions without sufficient particulars or evidence in support.  He had filed supporting affirmation and had the opportunity to make oral submissions before the judge in his leave application so there is no basis for him to complain that he should be given the opportunity to plead his case properly.  The applicant also failed to identify any error in the judge’s decision. 

5.  For the above reasons, the appeal is dismissed accordingly.

(Susan Kwan)(Anthony Chan)
Vice PresidentJustice of Appeal

  

The Applicant (Appellant), acting in person