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 Director and the Board applied the correct legal standards, made credible fact findings that the risk was localized and low, internal relocation was reasonable, the applicant's evidence was unreliable (partly due to refusal to give evidence), and no identifiable error of law, irrationality or procedural unfairness was demonstrated so there was no prospect of success.

Citation
[2020] HKCFI 2373
Parties
Applicant: Gurpreet Singh; Putative Respondent: Torture Claims Appeal Board; Putative Interested Party: Director of Immigration
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
22 September 2020
Case Number
HCAL733/2018
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review Leave to Apply / Leave Application Refused
Outcome
Leave to apply for judicial review refused.
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, Hong Kong Bill of Rights Article 2 (right to Life), Hong Kong Bill of Rights Article 3 (torture and Ill Treatment), Internal Relocation, Procedural Fairness, Standard of Review (anxious Scrutiny), Leave to Apply for Judicial Review
Source Language
EN
Constitutional Law Administrative Law Immigration Law Human Rights Law Refugee Law Non Refoulement Hong Kong Bill of Rights Article 2 (right to Life) Hong Kong Bill of Rights Article 3 (torture and Ill Treatment) +4 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 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Gurpreet Singh

Applicant

Torture Claims Appeal Board

Putative Respondent

Director of Immigration

Putative Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review Leave to Apply / Leave Application Refused

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether applicant established a real risk engaging BOR 2 (right to life) if returned to India
  2. 2 Whether risk of torture or ill-treatment (BOR 3) or persecution under Article 33 Refugee Convention is engaged
  3. 3 Whether the Board or Director committed an error of law, irrationality or procedural unfairness warranting judicial review

Ratio Decidendi

Leave refused because the Director and the Board applied the correct legal standards, made credible fact findings that the risk was localized and low, internal relocation was reasonable, the applicant's evidence was unreliable (partly due to refusal to give evidence), and no identifiable error of law, irrationality or procedural unfairness was demonstrated so there was no prospect of success.

Court Disposition

Leave to apply for judicial review refused.

Orders

  • Leave to apply for judicial review refused.