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

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

The adjudicator's adverse credibility finding was rational, supported by identified material inconsistencies, omissions and hearsay; there was no legal error in his approach and no necessity to consider COI once credibility was determinative, therefore the applicant's claim was not reasonably arguable and leave to apply for judicial review was refused.

Citation
[2018] HKCFI 1581
Parties
Applicant: Brar Mandeep 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
18 July 2018
Case Number
HCAL481/2017
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review / Leave Application (refused)
Outcome
Leave to apply for judicial review refused
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, Torture Risk, Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (cidtp), Persecution, Credibility Assessment, Wednesbury Unreasonableness, Country of Origin Information, State Protection
Source Language
EN
Immigration Human Rights Constitutional Law Administrative Law Non Refoulement Torture Risk Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (cidtp) Persecution +4 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 7 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Brar Mandeep 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 faced a real risk of torture as defined in Part VIIC of the Immigration Ordinance and Article 1 of the Convention Against Torture
  2. 2 Whether the applicant faced a risk of CIDTP under Article 3 of the Hong Kong Bill of Rights and Article 7 ICCPR
  3. 3 Whether the applicant faced a risk to life under Article 2 of the Hong Kong Bill of Rights and Article 6 ICCPR

Ratio Decidendi

The adjudicator's adverse credibility finding was rational, supported by identified material inconsistencies, omissions and hearsay; there was no legal error in his approach and no necessity to consider COI once credibility was determinative, therefore the applicant's claim was not reasonably arguable and leave to apply for judicial review was refused.

Court Disposition

Leave to apply for judicial review refused

Orders

  • Leave to apply for judicial review refused dated 18 July 2018