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

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

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the Adjudicator gave sufficient and clear reasons, properly examined COI, reasonably found no state acquiescence or lack of state protection, correctly assessed viability of internal relocation, committed no error of law or procedural unfairness, and the decision was not irrational or Wednesbury unreasonable, so the applicant had no reasonably arguable case.

Citation
[2019] HKCFI 683
Parties
Applicant: Harpreet Singh; 1st Putative Respondent: Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office; 2nd Putative Respondent: Director of Immigration
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
19 March 2019
Case Number
HCAL491/2018
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review / Leave Application (refused)
Outcome
Leave to apply for judicial review refused
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, Torture, Refugee Status, State Protection, Internal Relocation, Judicial Review, Leave to Apply
Source Language
EN
Administrative Law Immigration Law Human Rights Law Constitutional Law Non Refoulement Torture Refugee Status State Protection +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
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Harpreet Singh

Applicant

Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office

1st Putative Respondent

Director of Immigration

2nd Putative Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review / Leave Application (refused)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Adjudicator failed to consider state protection and state acquiescence
  2. 2 Whether the Adjudicator conducted sufficient independent inquiry and critical analysis of country-of-origin information (COI)
  3. 3 Whether the Adjudicator gave adequate reasons for findings including BOR3 risk

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the Adjudicator gave sufficient and clear reasons, properly examined COI, reasonably found no state acquiescence or lack of state protection, correctly assessed viability of internal relocation, committed no error of law or procedural unfairness, and the decision was not irrational or Wednesbury unreasonable, so the applicant had no reasonably arguable case.

Court Disposition

Leave to apply for judicial review refused

Orders

  • Leave to apply for judicial review refused