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

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

The application for leave was refused because there was no error of law or procedural unfairness in the Director's or the Board's decisions: the Board's adverse credibility findings were open on the evidence, the applicant failed to produce corroborative evidence despite opportunities and reminders, and objective COI supported that internal relocation and state protection were available and reasonable; therefore the proposed judicial review was not reasonably arguable.

Citation
[2018] HKCFI 197
Parties
Applicant: Harvinder Singh; 1st Putative Respondent: Director of Immigration; 2nd Putative Respondent: Torture Claims Appeal Board
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
30 January 2018
Case Number
HCAL191/2017
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review Leave Application / Leave Refused
Outcome
Leave to apply for judicial review refused.
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, Torture Risk, Article 3 HKBOR (cidtp), Article 2 HKBOR (right to Life), Internal Relocation, Country of Origin Information, Procedural Fairness, Credibility Assessment
Source Language
EN
Constitutional Law Administrative Law Immigration Law Human Rights Law Non Refoulement Torture Risk Article 3 HKBOR (cidtp) Article 2 HKBOR (right to Life) +4 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 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Harvinder Singh

Applicant

Director of Immigration

1st Putative Respondent

Torture Claims Appeal Board

2nd Putative Respondent

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review Leave Application / Leave Refused

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether applicant was denied procedural fairness by not receiving invitation to submit additional facts
  2. 2 Whether the Director and the Board erred in law in their assessment of country of origin information and internal relocation
  3. 3 Whether the Board’s adverse credibility findings were open to it on the evidence

Ratio Decidendi

The application for leave was refused because there was no error of law or procedural unfairness in the Director's or the Board's decisions: the Board's adverse credibility findings were open on the evidence, the applicant failed to produce corroborative evidence despite opportunities and reminders, and objective COI supported that internal relocation and state protection were available and reasonable; therefore the proposed judicial review was not reasonably arguable.

Court Disposition

Leave to apply for judicial review refused.

Orders

  • Leave to apply for judicial review refused.