GURSHARN SINGH v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD AND ANOTHER [Decision on Leave Application]

GURSHARN SINGH v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD AND ANOTHER [Decision on Leave Application]

Leave refused because the Director and the Board properly applied the law, made defensible credibility findings, reasonably concluded the risks were localized with state protection and feasible internal relocation available, applicant produced no additional facts to engage BOR 2, and no arguable legal error, irrationality or procedural unfairness was demonstrated.

Citation
[2022] HKCFI 1069
Parties
Applicant: Gursharn Singh; 1st Putative Respondent: Torture Claims Appeal Board; 2nd Putative Respondent: Director of Immigration
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
13 April 2022
Case Number
HCAL330/2019
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review (leave Application) / Leave Application Stage Refused
Outcome
Leave to apply for judicial review refused.
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, Torture Risk, Article 2 HKBOR (right to Life), Article 3 HKBOR, Internal Relocation, Credibility Findings, Leave for Judicial Review
Source Language
EN
Constitutional Law Administrative Law Immigration Law Human Rights Law Non Refoulement Torture Risk Article 2 HKBOR (right to Life) Article 3 HKBOR +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 5 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Gursharn Singh

Applicant

Torture Claims Appeal Board

1st Putative Respondent

Director of Immigration

2nd Putative Respondent

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review (leave Application) / Leave Application Stage Refused

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether applicant established a real risk to life or other absolute rights under HKBOR Article 2
  2. 2 Whether risk of torture or CIDT under HKBOR Article 3 or Immigration Ordinance Part VIIC is established
  3. 3 Whether internal relocation in India is reasonable and available

Ratio Decidendi

Leave refused because the Director and the Board properly applied the law, made defensible credibility findings, reasonably concluded the risks were localized with state protection and feasible internal relocation available, applicant produced no additional facts to engage BOR 2, and no arguable legal error, irrationality or procedural unfairness was demonstrated.

Court Disposition

Leave to apply for judicial review refused.

Orders

  • Leave to apply for judicial review refused.