GURJANT SINGH v. ADJUDICATOR OF TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD AND ANOTHER [Decision on Leave Application]

GURJANT SINGH v. ADJUDICATOR OF TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD AND ANOTHER [Decision on Leave Application]

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the Applicant failed to identify any legal error, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the Director's and Board's decisions; both decision makers had properly considered relevant Country of Origin Information, reasonably found the risk to be localized, and concluded that state protection and internal relocation in India were available, so there was no prospect of success.

Citation
[2020] HKCFI 59
Parties
Applicant: Gurjant Singh; 1st Putative Respondent: Adjudicator of Torture Claims Appeal Board; 2nd Putative Respondent: Director of Immigration
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
8 January 2020
Case Number
HCAL139/2018
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review / Decision on Leave Application Leave Refused
Outcome
Leave to apply for judicial review refused.
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, Torture and Ill Treatment, Hong Kong Bill of Rights Articles 2 and 3, Internal Relocation, Judicial Review Leave Stage, Procedural Fairness
Source Language
EN
Constitutional Law Administrative Law Immigration Law Human Rights Law Non Refoulement Torture and Ill Treatment Hong Kong Bill of Rights Articles 2 and 3 Internal Relocation +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 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Gurjant Singh

Applicant

Adjudicator of Torture Claims Appeal Board

1st Putative Respondent

Director of Immigration

2nd Putative Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review / Decision on Leave Application Leave Refused

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Director and the Torture Claims Appeal Board erred in law in rejecting the Applicant's non-refoulement claims
  2. 2 Whether the Applicant faces a real risk of torture or violation of non-derogable rights on return to India
  3. 3 Whether state protection and reasonable internal relocation in India are available and realistic

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the Applicant failed to identify any legal error, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the Director's and Board's decisions; both decision makers had properly considered relevant Country of Origin Information, reasonably found the risk to be localized, and concluded that state protection and internal relocation in India were available, so there was no prospect of success.

Court Disposition

Leave to apply for judicial review refused.

Orders

  • Leave to apply for judicial review refused.