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

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

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the applicant failed to demonstrate any arguable legal or procedural error by the Director or the Adjudicator; the evidence was speculative and insufficient to establish the requisite real personal risk under torture, BOR3, BOR2 or persecution standards, and the decisions were reasonable and open on the facts.

Citation
[2018] HKCFI 1111
Parties
Applicant: Akashdeep 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
6 July 2018
Case Number
HCAL717/2017
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review / Consideration on the Papers (leave Application Refused)
Outcome
Leave to apply for judicial review refused
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, Torture, Bill of Rights (hkboro), Refugee Status, Judicial Review, Leave to Apply
Source Language
EN
Immigration Law Administrative Law Constitutional Law Human Rights Law Non Refoulement Torture Bill of Rights (hkboro) Refugee Status +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 6 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Akashdeep Singh

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 / Consideration on the Papers (leave Application Refused)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether there was an arguable case of unlawfulness, unreasonableness or unfairness to justify leave for judicial review
  2. 2 Whether the Director of Immigration and the Torture Claims Appeal Board adjudicator erred in law or procedure in rejecting non-refoulement and Bill of Rights claims
  3. 3 Whether the applicant established a real and personal risk of torture, cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment, persecution or arbitrary deprivation of life

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the applicant failed to demonstrate any arguable legal or procedural error by the Director or the Adjudicator; the evidence was speculative and insufficient to establish the requisite real personal risk under torture, BOR3, BOR2 or persecution standards, and the decisions were reasonable and open on the facts.

Court Disposition

Leave to apply for judicial review refused

Orders

  • Leave to apply for judicial review refused.