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

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

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the applicant's complaints were not reasonably arguable and he had no realistic prospect of success: the Director and Adjudicator conducted a lawful, reasonable and fair screening process, made intelligible and adequate reasons when read together, found the applicant not credible, and their conclusions were not Wednesbury unreasonable.

Citation
[2018] HKCFI 1676
Parties
Applicant: Gurjant Singh; 1st Putative Respondent: Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office; 2nd Putative Respondent: Director of Immigration
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
30 July 2018
Case Number
HCAL1161/2017
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review (application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review) / Application for Leave (refused)
Outcome
Leave refused
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, Torture Convention (cat), Hong Kong Bill of Rights, Procedural Fairness, Unified Screening Mechanism, Leave to Apply for Judicial Review
Source Language
EN
Constitutional Law Administrative Law Immigration Law Human Rights Law Non Refoulement Torture Convention (cat) Hong Kong Bill of Rights Procedural Fairness +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 5 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Gurjant Singh

Applicant

Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office

1st Putative Respondent

Director of Immigration

2nd Putative Respondent

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review (application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review) / Application for Leave (refused)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Director and the Board breached procedural fairness rights (legal representation, language assistance, interview)
  2. 2 Whether the Director's further decision on BOR2 gave adequate reasons
  3. 3 Whether the Director and Adjudicator were Wednesbury unreasonable in rejecting the non-refoulement claim

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the applicant's complaints were not reasonably arguable and he had no realistic prospect of success: the Director and Adjudicator conducted a lawful, reasonable and fair screening process, made intelligible and adequate reasons when read together, found the applicant not credible, and their conclusions were not Wednesbury unreasonable.

Court Disposition

Leave refused

Orders

  • Leave to apply for judicial review refused