BALWINDER SINGH v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD [Decision on Leave Application]

BALWINDER SINGH v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD [Decision on Leave Application]

Leave was refused because the applicant failed to identify any arguable legal error, irrationality or procedural unfairness in the Director's and Board's decisions; the evidence supported the Board's findings that the risk was localized, state protection and reasonable internal relocation in India were available, and therefore there was no realistic prospect of success on judicial review.

Citation
[2020] HKCFI 2128
Parties
Applicant: Balwinder Singh; Putative Respondent: Torture Claims Appeal Board; Putative Interested Party: Director of Immigration
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
1 September 2020
Case Number
HCAL622/2018
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review Leave Application / Leave Application (refused)
Outcome
Leave to apply for judicial review refused
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, Torture, Article 3 HKBOR, Internal Relocation, State Acquiescence, Procedural Fairness, Judicial Review Standard
Source Language
EN
Immigration Law Constitutional Law Administrative Law Human Rights Law Non Refoulement Torture Article 3 HKBOR Internal Relocation +3 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 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Balwinder Singh

Applicant

Torture Claims Appeal Board

Putative Respondent

Director of Immigration

Putative Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review Leave Application / Leave Application (refused)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Board or Director made legal errors or acted irrationally or unfairly in rejecting the non-refoulement claim
  2. 2 Whether state acquiescence or extended state acquiescence applied
  3. 3 Whether adequate inquiry was made including consideration of COI and need for psychiatric reports

Ratio Decidendi

Leave was refused because the applicant failed to identify any arguable legal error, irrationality or procedural unfairness in the Director's and Board's decisions; the evidence supported the Board's findings that the risk was localized, state protection and reasonable internal relocation in India were available, and therefore there was no realistic prospect of success on judicial review.

Court Disposition

Leave to apply for judicial review refused

Orders

  • Leave to apply for judicial review refused