AJMER SINGH AND OTHERS v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE [Decision on Leave Application]

AJMER SINGH AND OTHERS v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE [Decision on Leave Application]

Leave was refused because the Board lawfully and reasonably considered the evidence including child-specific issues, its findings that state protection was available and that the applicants were unreliable were not vitiated by public law error, and the applicants lacked a reasonable prospect of success on judicial review.

Citation
[2026] HKCFI 1898
Parties
1st Applicant: Ajmer Singh; 2nd Applicant: Kawaljeet Kaur; 3rd Applicant: Priyanka; 4th Applicant: Harmandeep Singh; Putative Respondent: Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office; Putative Interested Party: Director of Immigration
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
15 April 2026
Case Number
HCAL1165/2025
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review (leave Application) / Decision on Application for Leave (leave Refused)
Outcome
Leave to apply for judicial review dismissed
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, Torture, Procedural Fairness, Child Specific Considerations, Leave to Apply for Judicial Review
Source Language
EN
Administrative Law Constitutional Law Immigration Law Human Rights Law Non Refoulement Torture Procedural Fairness Child Specific Considerations +1 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 15 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ajmer Singh

1st Applicant

Kawaljeet Kaur

2nd Applicant

Priyanka

3rd Applicant

Harmandeep Singh

4th Applicant

Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office

Putative Respondent

Director of Immigration

Putative Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review (leave Application) / Decision on Application for Leave (leave Refused)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Board unlawfully fettered its discretion
  2. 2 Whether the Board acted procedurally unfairly by failing to invite written submissions and by relying on hearsay or unverified sources
  3. 3 Whether the Board's decision was unreasonable or irrational in public law terms

Ratio Decidendi

Leave was refused because the Board lawfully and reasonably considered the evidence including child-specific issues, its findings that state protection was available and that the applicants were unreliable were not vitiated by public law error, and the applicants lacked a reasonable prospect of success on judicial review.

Court Disposition

Leave to apply for judicial review dismissed

Orders

  • Leave to apply for judicial review dismissed
  • Non-compliance with Order 80, rule 2 treated as a mere irregularity and not rendering the 3rd and 4th applicants' applications nullities