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

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

Leave was refused because, on rigorous examination and anxious scrutiny, the Board lawfully accepted the applicant's facts but reasonably concluded there was no real risk of proscribed harm, internal relocation was viable, and there were no errors of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality to found judicial review.

Citation
[2020] HKCFI 2472
Parties
Applicant: Gaganjeet 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
8 October 2020
Case Number
HCAL927/2018
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review / Leave Refused (considered on the Papers)
Outcome
Leave to apply for judicial review refused
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, Torture/cidtp, Internal Relocation, Credibility Assessment, Standard of Judicial Review, Procedural Fairness
Source Language
EN
Immigration Law Constitutional and Administrative Law Human Rights Law Refugee and Non Refoulement Law Non Refoulement Torture/cidtp Internal Relocation Credibility Assessment +2 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 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Gaganjeet 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 Refused (considered on the Papers)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Board erred in assessing risk of proscribed harm
  2. 2 Whether internal relocation was a viable means to avoid risk
  3. 3 Whether the Board acted irrationally or committed errors of law

Ratio Decidendi

Leave was refused because, on rigorous examination and anxious scrutiny, the Board lawfully accepted the applicant's facts but reasonably concluded there was no real risk of proscribed harm, internal relocation was viable, and there were no errors of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality to found judicial review.

Court Disposition

Leave to apply for judicial review refused

Orders

  • Leave to apply for Judicial Review be refused.