LAKHVIR KAUR AND ANOTHER v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD /NON REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE [Decision on Leave Application]

LAKHVIR KAUR AND ANOTHER v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD /NON REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE [Decision on Leave Application]

Leave was refused because the applicants failed to demonstrate a realistic prospect of success; the Board conducted a comprehensive assessment, its credibility findings and conclusions that there was no real risk, that state protection existed and that internal relocation was viable contained no legal error, procedural unfairness or irrationality.

Citation
[2021] HKCFI 3527
Parties
1st Applicant: Lakhvir Kaur; 2nd Applicant: Brar Bikramjit 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
24 November 2021
Case Number
HCAL1465/2018
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, Risk of Torture/cidtp, Right to Life, State Protection, Internal Relocation, Judicial Review Leave Stage, Minor's Representation
Source Language
EN
Constitutional Law Administrative Law Immigration Law Human Rights Law Refugee Law Non Refoulement Risk of Torture/cidtp Right to Life +4 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 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Lakhvir Kaur

1st Applicant

Brar Bikramjit Singh

2nd 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 the Board erred in law or procedure in assessing risk of honour killing
  2. 2 Whether substantial grounds existed for believing applicants faced real risk of torture or death
  3. 3 Whether state protection and internal relocation were available and viable

Ratio Decidendi

Leave was refused because the applicants failed to demonstrate a realistic prospect of success; the Board conducted a comprehensive assessment, its credibility findings and conclusions that there was no real risk, that state protection existed and that internal relocation was viable contained no legal error, procedural unfairness or irrationality.

Court Disposition

Leave to apply for judicial review refused; joint application dismissed

Orders

  • Leave to apply for judicial review refused
  • Applicants' joint application dismissed