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

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

Leave was refused because the applicant failed to demonstrate any realistic prospect of success on judicial review: the Board's findings were supported by the evidence, there was no error of law or procedural unfairness, and the conclusions on availability of state protection and viability of internal relocation...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2023] HKCFI 373
Parties
Applicant: Gurcharn 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
28 February 2023
Case Number
HCAL72/2019
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review Application for Leave / Leave Stage (refused)
Outcome
Leave to apply for judicial review refused; application dismissed.
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, Torture Risk, Right to Life (article 2 Hkbor), Prohibition of Torture and CIDTP (article 3 Hkbor), Refugee Convention Persecution, Internal Relocation, Judicial Review Leave
Source Language
en
Constitutional Law Administrative Law Immigration Law Human Rights Law Non Refoulement Torture Risk Right to Life (article 2 Hkbor) Prohibition of Torture and CIDTP (article 3 Hkbor) +3 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 3 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Gurcharn Singh

Applicant

Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office

Putative Respondent

Director of Immigration

Putative Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review Application for Leave / Leave Stage (refused)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Board erred in law or committed procedural unfairness in dismissing the non-refoulement/torture claim
  2. 2 Whether the applicant established a real risk of harm or death from a private actor on return
  3. 3 Whether state protection was available and internal relocation viable

Ratio Decidendi

Leave was refused because the applicant failed to demonstrate any realistic prospect of success on judicial review: the Board's findings were supported by the evidence, there was no error of law or procedural unfairness, and the conclusions on availability of state protection and viability of internal relocation were not irrational or Wednesbury unreasonable.

Court Disposition

Leave to apply for judicial review refused; application dismissed.

Orders

  • Leave to apply for judicial review refused
  • Application dismissed