MANDEEP SINGH v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE [Decision on Leave Application]
HTML content
HCAL 2297/2025
[2026] HKCFI 364
IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST No. 2297 of 2025
BETWEEN | ||
| Mandeep Singh | Applicant | |
| and | ||
| Torture Claims Appeal Board/ 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 documents only; or consideration of documents and oral submissions by the Applicant in open court;
Order by Deputy High Court Judge K.W. Lung:
Application for Leave to apply for Judicial Review be struck out.
Observations for the Applicant:
THE APPLICATION
1. The applicant’s application for leave to apply for judicial review of the Board’s Decision dated 21 February 2019 is struck out for reasons below:
a. This application is a duplication of his previous application on the same facts of his claim in the action HCAL 776 of 2019 filed on 20 March 2019, which was dismissed.
b. He applied for an extension of time to appeal against the Court’s Order. By Decision dated 22 May 2023, this Court refused his application. He did not appeal against this Order.
c. There is no reason from the applicant for this duplicated application.
d. The Court of Appeal in Fabio Arlyn Timogan & Others v Evan Ruth, Esq, Adjudicator of Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office and Director of Immigration [2020] HKCV 971, Hon Lam VP, Barma and Au JJA, 27 November 2020 held that such an application should be struck out:
“25. In Khan Kamran v Torture Claims Appeal Board, [2020] HKCA 380, the Court of Appeal held that it is an abuse of process for an Applicant to file a second application seeking judicial review in respect of the same Board decision …Such application is liable to be struck out. …”
e. Accordingly, this application is struck out.
Dated the 21st day of January 2026
| (Allen LEE) 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 21/1/2026 Mandeep 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 21/1/2026 Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office Putative Respondent’s ref. no.: USM 9194/17/11/205/IN1729 Director of Immigration Putative Interested Party’s ref. no.: RBCL 2753/14(CZ) Department of Justice, Senior Assistant Law Officer (Civil Law) (Civil Litigation Unit 2) |
Form CALL-1