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

BRAR SIMRANJEET 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 application was out of time, the applicant gave no reasons for delay, and there was no reasonable prospect of success: the Board's adverse credibility findings and conclusions that risk was low, state protection available and internal relocation viable were not shown to be legally erroneous, procedurally unfair or Wednesbury irrational, so there was no good reason to extend time.

Citation
[2021] HKCFI 605
Parties
Applicant: Brar Simranjeet 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
15 March 2021
Case Number
HCAL1255/2018
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Leave Application (refused)
Outcome
Leave to apply for judicial review refused; application dismissed.
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, Torture, Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, Extension of Time, Procedural Fairness, Credibility Findings, Internal Relocation, Wednesbury Unreasonableness
Source Language
EN
Constitutional Law Administrative Law Immigration Law Human Rights Law Non Refoulement Torture Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment Extension of Time +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 5 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Brar Simranjeet Singh

Applicant

Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office

Putative Respondent

Director of Immigration

Putative Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Leave Application (refused)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the application for leave was out of time and whether time should be extended
  2. 2 Whether the applicant showed arguable merits to justify extension of time
  3. 3 Whether the Board made errors of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality in its credibility findings

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the application was out of time, the applicant gave no reasons for delay, and there was no reasonable prospect of success: the Board's adverse credibility findings and conclusions that risk was low, state protection available and internal relocation viable were not shown to be legally erroneous, procedurally unfair or Wednesbury irrational, so there was no good reason to extend time.

Court Disposition

Leave to apply for judicial review refused; application dismissed.

Orders

  • Leave to apply for judicial review refused
  • Extension of time to file the application refused