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

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

Application dismissed and extension of time refused because the application was substantially out of time with no satisfactory explanation, the intended judicial review had no realistic prospect of success as the Board's assessment of risk, state protection and internal relocation was lawful and rational and there...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2020] HKCFI 2387
Parties
Applicant: Amanpreet Singh Brar; 1st Putative Respondent: Torture Claims Appeal Board/ Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office; 2nd Putative Respondent: Director of Immigration
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
28 September 2020
Case Number
HCAL904/2018
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review / Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review (leave Refused)
Outcome
Extension of time refused; application for leave to apply for judicial review dismissed
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, Torture/cidtp, Burden of Proof, Extension of Time, Procedural Fairness, Internal Relocation, Standard of Review, Credibility
Source Language
en
Constitutional and Administrative Law Immigration Law Human Rights Law Non Refoulement Torture/cidtp Burden of Proof Extension of Time Procedural Fairness +3 more

Source-derived case record

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 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Amanpreet Singh Brar

Applicant

Torture Claims Appeal Board/ Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office

1st Putative Respondent

Director of Immigration

2nd Putative Respondent

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review / Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review (leave Refused)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the out-of-time application should be granted an extension of time under Order 53 r.4(1)
  2. 2 Whether the Board and Director erred in law, acted irrationally or breached procedural fairness in rejecting the non-refoulement claim
  3. 3 Whether the Board applied correct standards to risk, state protection and internal relocation

Ratio Decidendi

Application dismissed and extension of time refused because the application was substantially out of time with no satisfactory explanation, the intended judicial review had no realistic prospect of success as the Board's assessment of risk, state protection and internal relocation was lawful and rational and there were no errors of law or procedural unfairness to justify interference.

Court Disposition

Extension of time refused; application for leave to apply for judicial review dismissed

Orders

  • Extension of time for the application for leave to apply for judicial review refused
  • Application for leave to apply for judicial review dismissed