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

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

Leave for judicial review was refused because the applicant failed to demonstrate exceptional circumstances to permit review of the Director's decisions and there was no reasonable prospect of success against the Board's Decision given the Adjudicator's explicit credibility findings and proper case management.

Citation
[2019] HKCFI 458
Parties
Applicant: Inderjit 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
27 February 2019
Case Number
HCAL1228/2018
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review / Leave Application (notification of Decision Under Order 53 R.3)
Outcome
Leave refused; application for leave for judicial review dismissed.
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, Torture, Judicial Review, Leave to Apply, Credibility Assessment, Statutory Appeal
Source Language
EN
Immigration Law Constitutional Law Administrative Law Human Rights Law Non Refoulement Torture Judicial Review Leave to Apply +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 3 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Inderjit Singh

Applicant

Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office

1st Putative Respondent

The Director of Immigration

2nd Putative Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review / Leave Application (notification of Decision Under Order 53 R.3)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether leave can be sought against the Director's decisions without exceptional circumstances
  2. 2 Whether the Board's adverse credibility findings can be reviewed on judicial review and whether there is a reasonable prospect of success
  3. 3 Whether the applicant was denied procedural fairness by lack of notice/translation regarding BOR 2 risk

Ratio Decidendi

Leave for judicial review was refused because the applicant failed to demonstrate exceptional circumstances to permit review of the Director's decisions and there was no reasonable prospect of success against the Board's Decision given the Adjudicator's explicit credibility findings and proper case management.

Court Disposition

Leave refused; application for leave for judicial review dismissed.

Orders

  • The application for leave for judicial review is refused and the application is dismissed.