DANDIWAL SANDEEP SINGH v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD AND ANOTHER [Decision on Leave Application]

DANDIWAL SANDEEP SINGH v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD AND ANOTHER [Decision on Leave Application]

Leave was refused because the applicant failed to identify any reasonably arguable legal error or procedural unfairness in the Director’s and Board’s decisions; the Board’s adverse credibility findings and conclusion that state protection and internal relocation were available were lawful and not irrational, and...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2020] HKCFI 2186
Parties
Applicant: Dandiwal Sandeep Singh; 1st Putative Respondent: Torture Claims Appeal Board; 2nd Putative Respondent: Director of Immigration
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
3 September 2020
Case Number
HCAL704/2018
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review (leave to Apply) / Leave Application Refused
Outcome
Leave to apply for judicial review refused.
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, Risk Assessment, Internal Relocation, Credibility Assessment, Procedural Fairness, Judicial Review Leave Test
Source Language
en
Immigration Administrative Law Constitutional Law Human Rights Refugee Law Torture Law Non Refoulement Risk Assessment +4 more

Source-derived case record

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 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Dandiwal Sandeep Singh

Applicant

Torture Claims Appeal Board

1st Putative Respondent

Director of Immigration

2nd Putative Respondent

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review (leave to Apply) / Leave Application Refused

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether there was any arguable error of law or procedural unfairness by the Director or the Torture Claims Appeal Board
  2. 2 Whether the applicant faced a real risk of torture, persecution or violation of non-derogable rights on return to India
  3. 3 Whether internal relocation within India or state protection was reasonably available

Ratio Decidendi

Leave was refused because the applicant failed to identify any reasonably arguable legal error or procedural unfairness in the Director’s and Board’s decisions; the Board’s adverse credibility findings and conclusion that state protection and internal relocation were available were lawful and not irrational, and therefore there was no prospect of success on judicial review.

Court Disposition

Leave to apply for judicial review refused.

Orders

  • Leave to apply for judicial review refused.