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

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

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the court found no error of law, no procedural unfairness and that the Adjudicator applied a high standard of fairness; there was no realistic prospect of success on the applicant's non-refoulement, torture/CIDTP or right to life claims and the enhanced...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2018] HKCFI 845
Parties
Applicant: Dilbag Singh; Putative Respondent: Torture Claims Appeal Board; Putative Interested Party: Director of Immigration
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
25 April 2018
Case Number
HCAL613/2017
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review / Leave Refused at Threshold (application for Leave)
Outcome
Leave refused
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, Risk of Torture/cidtp, Right to Life, Persecution, Judicial Review Leave, Wednesbury Unreasonableness
Source Language
en
Constitutional Law Administrative Law Immigration Law Human Rights Law Non Refoulement Risk of Torture/cidtp Right to Life Persecution +2 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 6 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Dilbag Singh

Applicant

Torture Claims Appeal Board

Putative Respondent

Director of Immigration

Putative Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review / Leave Refused at Threshold (application for Leave)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether there was a realistic prospect of success warranting leave for judicial review
  2. 2 Whether the Adjudicator or Director made errors of law or procedural unfairness in rejecting non-refoulement/torture and related human rights claims
  3. 3 Whether the applicant faces a real risk of torture, CIDTP, persecution or deprivation of life if returned

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the court found no error of law, no procedural unfairness and that the Adjudicator applied a high standard of fairness; there was no realistic prospect of success on the applicant's non-refoulement, torture/CIDTP or right to life claims and the enhanced Wednesbury test was satisfied.

Court Disposition

Leave refused

Orders

  • Leave to apply for judicial review refused