HARJIT SINGH v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD/ NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE [Decision on Leave Application]

HARJIT SINGH v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD/ NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE [Decision on Leave Application]

Leave was refused because the Applicant failed to identify any reasonably arguable legal error or procedural unfairness with sufficient particularity; the Director and the Board lawfully and reasonably concluded the risk was localized and low and that internal relocation in India was available, and the Applicant had adequate opportunity to present evidence and to be understood.

Citation
[2020] HKCFI 91
Parties
Applicant: Harjit Singh; 1st Putative Respondent: Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-Refoulement Claims Petition Office; 2nd Putative Respondent: The Director of Immigration
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
20 January 2020
Case Number
HCAL1163/2018
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review Leave Application / Leave Application Refused (notification of Decision)
Outcome
Leave to apply for judicial review refused.
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, Torture Risk (part VIIC Immigration Ordinance), Article 2 BOR (right to Life), Article 3 BOR (prohibition of Torture), Persecution (refugee Convention Article 33), Internal Relocation, Procedural Fairness, Legal Representation, Country of Origin Information (coi)
Source Language
EN
Constitutional Law Administrative Law Immigration Law Human Rights Law Non Refoulement Torture Risk (part VIIC Immigration Ordinance) Article 2 BOR (right to Life) Article 3 BOR (prohibition of Torture) +5 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 18 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Harjit Singh

Applicant

Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-Refoulement Claims Petition Office

1st Putative Respondent

The Director of Immigration

2nd Putative Respondent

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review Leave Application / Leave Application Refused (notification of Decision)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether leave to apply for judicial review should be granted
  2. 2 Whether the Director and the Board erred in law in assessing non-refoulement/torture/BOR risks
  3. 3 Whether absence of legal representation at Board hearing amounted to unfairness requiring review

Ratio Decidendi

Leave was refused because the Applicant failed to identify any reasonably arguable legal error or procedural unfairness with sufficient particularity; the Director and the Board lawfully and reasonably concluded the risk was localized and low and that internal relocation in India was available, and the Applicant had adequate opportunity to present evidence and to be understood.

Court Disposition

Leave to apply for judicial review refused.

Orders

  • Leave to apply for judicial review refused.