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

GURDEV 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 applicant failed to demonstrate any reasonably arguable grounds of unlawfulness, unreasonableness or procedural unfairness; the Adjudicator conducted a lawful rehearing, applied the correct legal tests and reached a determination that was open on the facts; the Director's decision is not reviewable after the TCAB rehearing.

Citation
[2018] HKCFI 2207
Parties
Applicant: Gurdev 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
1 November 2018
Case Number
HCAL955/2017
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review / Leave Application Refused (considered on Papers)
Outcome
Leave to apply for judicial review refused.
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, Torture Risk, Article 2 HKBORO (right to Life), Article 3 HKBORO (prohibition of Torture), Judicial Review, Leave to Apply
Source Language
EN
Immigration Law Constitutional Law Administrative Law Human Rights Law Refugee Law Non Refoulement Torture Risk Article 2 HKBORO (right to Life) +3 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 4 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Gurdev 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 Application Refused (considered on Papers)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether leave to apply for judicial review should be granted
  2. 2 Whether the Director's decision was susceptible to judicial review after appeal to TCAB
  3. 3 Whether the Adjudicator breached procedural fairness or made legal error

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the applicant failed to demonstrate any reasonably arguable grounds of unlawfulness, unreasonableness or procedural unfairness; the Adjudicator conducted a lawful rehearing, applied the correct legal tests and reached a determination that was open on the facts; the Director's decision is not reviewable after the TCAB rehearing.

Court Disposition

Leave to apply for judicial review refused.

Orders

  • Leave to apply for judicial review refused.