JASPREET SINGH v. KEVIN ANTHONY BROWNE, ESQ., TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE [Decision on Leave Application]

JASPREET SINGH v. KEVIN ANTHONY BROWNE, ESQ., TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE [Decision on Leave Application]

The judge found the applicant's grounds were vague, lacked particulars and were not reasonably arguable; the Director and Board reasonably concluded the risk was localized, state protection and internal relocation were available and the procedure was fair; accordingly there was no real prospect of success and leave to apply for judicial review was refused.

Citation
[2019] HKCFI 926
Parties
Applicant: Jaspreet Singh; Putative Respondent: Kevin Anthony Browne, ESQ.; Putative Interested Party: Director of Immigration
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
12 April 2019
Case Number
HCAL874/2017
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 (immigration Ordinance Part Viic), Article 3 HKBOR, Article 2 HKBOR (right to Life), Internal Relocation, Procedural Fairness, Judicial Review Leave
Source Language
EN
Immigration Constitutional Law Administrative Law Human Rights Non Refoulement Torture Risk (immigration Ordinance Part Viic) Article 3 HKBOR Article 2 HKBOR (right to Life) +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 4 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Jaspreet Singh

Applicant

Kevin Anthony Browne, ESQ.

Putative Respondent

Director of Immigration

Putative Interested Party

Procedural Posture

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

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Board and Director erred in law or acted unfairly in rejecting non-refoulement/torture/Article 3 claims
  2. 2 Whether the adjudicator failed to take into account or properly weight Country of Origin Information (COI)
  3. 3 Whether the risk to applicant is localized and whether internal relocation in India is reasonable and available

Ratio Decidendi

The judge found the applicant's grounds were vague, lacked particulars and were not reasonably arguable; the Director and Board reasonably concluded the risk was localized, state protection and internal relocation were available and the procedure was fair; accordingly there was no real prospect of success and leave to apply for judicial review was refused.

Court Disposition

Leave to apply for judicial review refused.

Orders

  • Leave to apply for judicial review refused.