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

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

Leave was refused because the applicant's grounds were general and unparticularised and not reasonably arguable, and because the Director and the Board made lawful, rational decisions that the risk was localized, state protection and reasonable internal relocation in India were available, and there was no demonstrated legal error or procedural unfairness meeting the threshold for judicial review.

Citation
[2020] HKCFI 301
Parties
Applicant: Jasmel Singh; 1st Putative Respondent: The Director of Immigration; 2nd Putative Respondent: The Adjudicator of the Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
28 July 2020
Case Number
HCAL1480/2018
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 Risk, Internal Relocation, Procedural Fairness, Wednesbury Unreasonableness, Screening and Appeal Process
Source Language
EN
Immigration Law Constitutional Law Administrative Law Human Rights Non Refoulement Torture Risk Internal Relocation Procedural Fairness +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 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Jasmel Singh

Applicant

The Director of Immigration

1st Putative Respondent

The Adjudicator of the Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office

2nd Putative Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review / Leave Application Refused

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether leave should be granted to challenge Director and Board decisions on non-refoulement grounds
  2. 2 Whether the Director and the Board failed to afford procedural fairness or applied the Wednesbury standard
  3. 3 Whether state acquiescence or lack of police protection was properly considered

Ratio Decidendi

Leave was refused because the applicant's grounds were general and unparticularised and not reasonably arguable, and because the Director and the Board made lawful, rational decisions that the risk was localized, state protection and reasonable internal relocation in India were available, and there was no demonstrated legal error or procedural unfairness meeting the threshold for judicial review.

Court Disposition

Leave to apply for judicial review refused.

Orders

  • Leave to apply for judicial review refused.