GURVINDER SINGH v. THE DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION AND ANOTHER [Decision on Leave Application]

GURVINDER SINGH v. THE DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION AND ANOTHER [Decision on Leave Application]

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the applicant failed to demonstrate exceptional circumstances to bypass the statutory appellate process and failed to show any real prospect of success on his non-refoulement, torture or Bill of Rights claims; the Board is the proper forum and it had lawfully confirmed the Director's decisions.

Citation
[2019] HKCFI 107
Parties
Applicant: Gurvinder Singh; 1st Putative Respondent: The Director of Immigration; 2nd Putative Respondent: The Adjudicator of the Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-Refoulement Claims Petition Office
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
15 January 2019
Case Number
HCAL108/2018
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review / Leave Refused
Outcome
Leave to apply for judicial review refused and application dismissed
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, Torture/cidtp, Right to Life (bor Article 2), Leave to Apply for Judicial Review, Statutory Appeal to Torture Claims Appeal Board
Source Language
EN
Constitutional Law Administrative Law Immigration Law Human Rights Law Non Refoulement Torture/cidtp Right to Life (bor Article 2) Leave to Apply for Judicial Review +1 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

Gurvinder Singh

Applicant

The Director of Immigration

1st Putative Respondent

The Adjudicator of the Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-Refoulement Claims Petition Office

2nd Putative Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review / Leave Refused

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether applicant can seek judicial review of the Director of Immigration's decision without exceptional circumstances
  2. 2 Whether the applicant established a real prospect of success on his non-refoulement/torture/BOR claims
  3. 3 Whether the Board properly exercised its statutory appellate jurisdiction and its decision should be subject to leave for judicial review

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the applicant failed to demonstrate exceptional circumstances to bypass the statutory appellate process and failed to show any real prospect of success on his non-refoulement, torture or Bill of Rights claims; the Board is the proper forum and it had lawfully confirmed the Director's decisions.

Court Disposition

Leave to apply for judicial review refused and application dismissed

Orders

  • Leave to apply for judicial review refused.
  • Application for leave to apply for judicial review dismissed.