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

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

The TCAB and Director had considered the applicant's evidence under BOR Article 2, no new facts or legal issues were presented on the appeal, there was no real risk to life established and no procedural unfairness in deciding the appeal on the papers; consequently there were no reasonably arguable grounds and leave...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2018] HKCFI 518
Parties
Applicant: Gurjant 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
16 March 2018
Case Number
HCAL704/2017
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review / Application for Leave Refused (notification Under Order 53 R.3)
Outcome
Leave to apply for judicial review refused
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, Right to Life (bor Article 2), Torture/cat Risk, Article 3 ICCPR / CIDTP, Judicial Review Leave
Source Language
en
Constitutional Law Administrative Law Immigration Law Human Rights Law Non Refoulement Right to Life (bor Article 2) Torture/cat Risk Article 3 ICCPR / CIDTP +1 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 7 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Gurjant 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 / Application for Leave Refused (notification Under Order 53 R.3)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the refusal to hold an oral hearing and lack of legal representation amounted to procedural unfairness
  2. 2 Whether the applicant established a real risk of breach of the right to life under BOR Article 2 if returned
  3. 3 Whether there were new facts or arguable grounds sufficient to grant leave for judicial review

Ratio Decidendi

The TCAB and Director had considered the applicant's evidence under BOR Article 2, no new facts or legal issues were presented on the appeal, there was no real risk to life established and no procedural unfairness in deciding the appeal on the papers; consequently there were no reasonably arguable grounds and leave to apply for judicial review was refused.

Court Disposition

Leave to apply for judicial review refused

Orders

  • Leave to apply for judicial review refused on 16 March 2018.