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

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

Leave was refused because the applicants had no reasonable prospect of success: the Board's adverse credibility findings on the parents' core factual account were sustainable, no separate child-specific non-refoulement grounds were shown, internal relocation was found viable, and the parents confirmed they had presented the children's issues to the Board; procedural non-compliance was a mere irregularity not vitiating the minors' applications.

Citation
[2026] HKCFI 1951
Parties
1st Applicant: Thind Sukhwinder Singh; 2nd Applicant: Dimple Kumari; 3rd Applicant: Thind Avneet Kaur; 4th Applicant: Thind Sonaksh; 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
HCAL1162/2020
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review / Leave Application (refused)
Outcome
Leave to apply for judicial review refused; joint application dismissed
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, Torture and CIDTP, Best Interests of the Child, Procedural Fairness, Credibility Findings, Internal Relocation, Leave to Apply for Judicial Review
Source Language
EN
Constitutional Law Administrative Law Immigration Law Human Rights Law Refugee Law Family Law Non Refoulement Torture and CIDTP +5 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 11 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Thind Sukhwinder Singh

1st Applicant

Dimple Kumari

2nd Applicant

Thind Avneet Kaur

3rd Applicant

Thind Sonaksh

4th Applicant

Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office

Putative Respondent

Director of Immigration

Putative Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review / Leave Application (refused)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether leave to apply for judicial review of the Board's Decision should be granted
  2. 2 Whether the Board's failure to separately consider child-specific issues for unrepresented minors amounted to procedural unfairness warranting judicial review
  3. 3 Whether the Board's rejection of the parents' core factual account was lawful and sustainable on the record

Ratio Decidendi

Leave was refused because the applicants had no reasonable prospect of success: the Board's adverse credibility findings on the parents' core factual account were sustainable, no separate child-specific non-refoulement grounds were shown, internal relocation was found viable, and the parents confirmed they had presented the children's issues to the Board; procedural non-compliance was a mere irregularity not vitiating the minors' applications.

Court Disposition

Leave to apply for judicial review refused; joint application dismissed

Orders

  • Leave for the Applicants to apply for judicial review refused
  • Non-compliance with Order 80, rule 2 of the Rules of the High Court in these proceedings treated as a mere irregularity and not rendering the 3rd and 4th Applicants application a nullity