GURJIT SINGH v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION [Decision on Leave Application]

GURJIT SINGH v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION [Decision on Leave Application]

The application for leave was refused because the applicant filed out of time without explanation, his pleaded grounds were vague and not reasonably arguable, and the Director and the Board lawfully found the risk to be localized with reasonable internal relocation available in India, such that there was no real prospect of success warranting leave or extension of time.

Citation
[2019] HKCFI 772
Parties
Applicant: Gurjit Singh; Putative Respondent: Director of Immigration
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
22 March 2019
Case Number
HCAL828/2017
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review (leave Application) / Decision on Leave Application (leave and Extension Refused)
Outcome
Extension of time for leave refused; leave to apply for judicial review refused.
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, Torture Claims, Leave to Apply for Judicial Review, Extension of Time, Internal Relocation, Procedural Fairness, Standard of Review
Source Language
EN
Constitutional Law Administrative Law Immigration Law Human Rights Law Non Refoulement Torture Claims Leave to Apply for Judicial Review Extension of Time +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 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Gurjit Singh

Applicant

Director of Immigration

Putative Respondent

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review (leave Application) / Decision on Leave Application (leave and Extension Refused)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Delay and extension of time under Order 53 r.4(1)
  2. 2 Whether the applicant's grounds are reasonably arguable for judicial review
  3. 3 Assessment of non-refoulement risk including torture and BOR Article 3/Article 2 rights

Ratio Decidendi

The application for leave was refused because the applicant filed out of time without explanation, his pleaded grounds were vague and not reasonably arguable, and the Director and the Board lawfully found the risk to be localized with reasonable internal relocation available in India, such that there was no real prospect of success warranting leave or extension of time.

Court Disposition

Extension of time for leave refused; leave to apply for judicial review refused.

Orders

  • Extension of time for the application for leave to apply for judicial review refused
  • Leave to apply for judicial review refused