GURPREET SINGH v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD [Decision on Leave Application]

GURPREET SINGH v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD [Decision on Leave Application]

Leave refused because the applicant's complaints were factually incorrect or unsupported, no arguable legal error or procedural unfairness was shown, and the Director and Board reasonably relied on COI and concluded state protection and internal relocation were available, negating the claimed risks.

Citation
[2019] HKCFI 2368
Parties
Applicant: Gurpreet Singh; Putative Respondent: Torture Claims Appeal Board; Putative Interested Party: Immigration Department
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
13 November 2019
Case Number
HCAL239/2017
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review (immigration Decision) / Leave Application Refused (notification Dated 13 November 2019)
Outcome
Leave to apply for judicial review refused.
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, Torture Claim, Risk Assessment, Internal Relocation, Procedural Fairness, Judicial Review
Source Language
EN
Immigration Law Constitutional Law Administrative Law Human Rights Law Non Refoulement Torture Claim Risk Assessment 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 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Gurpreet Singh

Applicant

Torture Claims Appeal Board

Putative Respondent

Immigration Department

Putative Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review (immigration Decision) / Leave Application Refused (notification Dated 13 November 2019)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether applicant was denied opportunity to submit additional facts under Hong Kong Bill of Rights Article 2 risk
  2. 2 Whether the Director and Board irrationally or improperly relied on Country of Origin Information in assessing risk of harm
  3. 3 Whether state protection and internal relocation are available and negate non-refoulement/torture protection

Ratio Decidendi

Leave refused because the applicant's complaints were factually incorrect or unsupported, no arguable legal error or procedural unfairness was shown, and the Director and Board reasonably relied on COI and concluded state protection and internal relocation were available, negating the claimed risks.

Court Disposition

Leave to apply for judicial review refused.

Orders

  • Leave to apply for judicial review refused.