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

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

Leave was refused because the applicant failed to identify any error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the Board's decision; the Board's conclusions that the risk was low, state protection and internal relocation were available, and that there was insufficient objective evidence were reasonable and left no arguable ground for judicial review.

Citation
[2021] HKCFI 481
Parties
Applicant: Baljinder Kumar; 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
1 March 2021
Case Number
HCAL1227/2018
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review / Leave Application Refused; Application Dismissed
Outcome
Leave to apply for judicial review refused; application dismissed
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, Torture and CIDTP, Persecution Under Refugee Convention, State Protection, Internal Relocation, Judicial Review Leave
Source Language
EN
Immigration Law Human Rights Law Administrative Law Constitutional Law Non Refoulement Torture and CIDTP Persecution Under Refugee Convention State Protection +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 3 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Baljinder Kumar

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; Application Dismissed

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Board erred in law or committed procedural unfairness
  2. 2 Whether the applicant faces a real risk of torture, CIDTP or persecution from private actors
  3. 3 Whether state protection is available and effective

Ratio Decidendi

Leave was refused because the applicant failed to identify any error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the Board's decision; the Board's conclusions that the risk was low, state protection and internal relocation were available, and that there was insufficient objective evidence were reasonable and left no arguable ground for judicial review.

Court Disposition

Leave to apply for judicial review refused; application dismissed

Orders

  • Leave to apply for judicial review refused.
  • Application dismissed.