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

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

Extension of time refused because the one-day delay was unexplained in any way that would justify extension, the intended appeal had no realistic prospect of success (claim unsubstantiated and state protection available), and the Court's decision had been validly served to the applicant's last known address, so the application was dismissed.

Citation
[2026] HKCFI 128
Parties
Applicant: Satinderpal 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
28 January 2026
Case Number
HCAL1170/2025
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review Leave Application; Non Refoulement/torture Claim Appeal / Application for Extension of Time to File Appeal (one Day Out of Time)
Outcome
Extension of time refused; application dismissed.
Legal Topics
Extension of Time, Deemed Service, Prospect of Success, Non Refoulement, Procedure Under Rules of the High Court
Source Language
EN
Constitutional Law Administrative Law Immigration Law Human Rights Law Judicial Review Extension of Time Deemed Service Prospect of Success +2 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 4 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Satinderpal Singh

Applicant

Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office

Putative Respondent

Director of Immigration

Putative Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review Leave Application; Non Refoulement/torture Claim Appeal / Application for Extension of Time to File Appeal (one Day Out of Time)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether to grant extension of time for appeal filed one day late
  2. 2 Whether the intended appeal has a realistic prospect of success
  3. 3 Whether the applicant was deemed to have received the Court's decision

Ratio Decidendi

Extension of time refused because the one-day delay was unexplained in any way that would justify extension, the intended appeal had no realistic prospect of success (claim unsubstantiated and state protection available), and the Court's decision had been validly served to the applicant's last known address, so the application was dismissed.

Court Disposition

Extension of time refused; application dismissed.

Orders

  • Refuse extension of time for appeal (application out of time)
  • Dismiss the applicant's application