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

ARSHDEEP 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 Board's assessment of the evidence was fair and reasonable, within its fact-finding province, it identified state protection and viable internal relocation and found no legally material risk; the applicant raised no arguable legal or procedural errors and therefore had no realistic prospect of success on judicial review.

Citation
[2025] HKCFI 5412
Parties
Applicant: Arshdeep 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 2025
Case Number
HCAL1123/2025
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review Leave to Apply / Leave Refused
Outcome
Leave to apply for judicial review refused; application dismissed.
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, Torture, Cruel Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, Risk Assessment, State Protection, Internal Relocation, Procedural Fairness, Judicial Review Leave
Source Language
EN
Immigration Law Administrative Law Human Rights Constitutional Law Refugee Law Non Refoulement Torture Cruel Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment +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 4 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Arshdeep Singh

Applicant

Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office

Putative Respondent

Director of Immigration

Putative Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review Leave to Apply / Leave Refused

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant faces risk of torture under Part VIIC of the Immigration Ordinance
  2. 2 Whether removal would violate Article 2 (right to life) of the Hong Kong Bill of Rights
  3. 3 Whether removal would violate Article 3 (CIDTP) of the Hong Kong Bill of Rights

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the Board's assessment of the evidence was fair and reasonable, within its fact-finding province, it identified state protection and viable internal relocation and found no legally material risk; the applicant raised no arguable legal or procedural errors and therefore had no realistic prospect of success on judicial review.

Court Disposition

Leave to apply for judicial review refused; application dismissed.

Orders

  • Refuse leave to apply for judicial review of the Board's Decision dated 28 April 2025
  • Dismiss the applicant's Form 86 application for leave to apply for judicial review