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

BALJIT 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 identify any arguable legal ground, provided no evidence to undermine the Board's findings (including that there was no BOR 3 risk), and thus had no realistic prospect of success; absence of BOR 3 risk precluded an arguable BOR 2 claim and the new documents did not materially advance the case.

Citation
[2025] HKCFI 4268
Parties
Applicant: Baljit 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
8 October 2025
Case Number
HCAL1232/2020
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review / Leave Application Refused
Outcome
Leave to apply for judicial review refused; application dismissed.
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, Torture Claim, HKBOR Article 2 (right to Life), HKBOR Article 3 (prohibition of Torture/cidtp), Internal Relocation, Judicial Review (leave Stage), Procedural Fairness, Risk Assessment, Finality of Administrative Decisions
Source Language
EN
Constitutional Law Administrative Law Immigration Law Human Rights Law Non Refoulement Torture Claim HKBOR Article 2 (right to Life) HKBOR Article 3 (prohibition of Torture/cidtp) +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 12 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Baljit 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 / Leave Application Refused

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant has an arguable case to obtain leave for judicial review of the Board's decision
  2. 2 Whether the applicant established a BOR 2 (Article 2) or BOR 3 (Article 3/CIDTP) risk on return to India
  3. 3 Whether the Board committed error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality in its fact‑finding and risk assessment

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the applicant failed to identify any arguable legal ground, provided no evidence to undermine the Board's findings (including that there was no BOR 3 risk), and thus had no realistic prospect of success; absence of BOR 3 risk precluded an arguable BOR 2 claim and the new documents did not materially advance the case.

Court Disposition

Leave to apply for judicial review refused; application dismissed.

Orders

  • Leave to apply for judicial review refused
  • Application dismissed