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

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

The applicant's evidence was found totally unreliable and lacked any factual basis to establish BOR 2 or other non‑refoulement risks; the Board was entitled to decline further hearing under section 15 Schedule A; because there was no realistic prospect of success the court refused leave for judicial review.

Citation
[2020] HKCFI 890
Parties
Applicant: Harpreet Singh; Putative Respondent: Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
22 May 2020
Case Number
HCAL1608/2018
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review / Leave Refused on Documents (notification of Decision)
Outcome
Leave to apply for judicial review refused.
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, Torture/cidtp Risk, Right to Life (bor 2), Credibility Assessment, Leave to Apply for Judicial Review
Source Language
EN
Immigration Law Administrative Law Constitutional Law Refugee Law Human Rights Law Non Refoulement Torture/cidtp Risk Right to Life (bor 2) +2 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 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Harpreet Singh

Applicant

Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office

Putative Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review / Leave Refused on Documents (notification of Decision)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant has a reasonable prospect of success to justify leave for judicial review of the Board's Further Decision
  2. 2 Whether the Board erred in law in assessing BOR 2 risk or in declining a hearing under section 15, Schedule A of the Immigration Ordinance
  3. 3 Whether the Board's adverse credibility finding was legally unsound or amounting to unfairness

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant's evidence was found totally unreliable and lacked any factual basis to establish BOR 2 or other non‑refoulement risks; the Board was entitled to decline further hearing under section 15 Schedule A; because there was no realistic prospect of success the court refused leave for judicial review.

Court Disposition

Leave to apply for judicial review refused.

Orders

  • Leave to apply for judicial review refused
  • Rectification of Form 86: add Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office as respondent and specify relief challenging Board decisions dated 22 April 2015 and 26 July 2018