JASPREET SINGH v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD AND ANOTHER [Decision on Leave Application]

JASPREET SINGH v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD AND ANOTHER [Decision on Leave Application]

Leave refused because the Applicant failed to identify any arguable legal error, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the Director's and Board's decisions; credibility findings were supported, the risk was assessed as low, and reasonable internal relocation and state protection were available, so there was no realistic prospect of success on judicial review.

Citation
[2022] HKCFI 1008
Parties
Applicant: Jaspreet Singh; 1st Putative Respondent: Torture Claims Appeal Board; 2nd Putative Respondent: Director of Immigration
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
8 April 2022
Case Number
HCAL40/2019
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review (non Refoulement) / Leave Application (refused)
Outcome
Leave to apply for judicial review refused.
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, Torture Risk, Right to Life (hkbor Article 2), Prohibition of Torture (hkbor Article 3), Persecution (refugee Convention Article 33), Internal Relocation, Procedural Fairness, Judicial Review Leave
Source Language
EN
Constitutional Law Administrative Law Immigration Law Human Rights Refugee Law Non Refoulement Torture Risk Right to Life (hkbor Article 2) +5 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 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Jaspreet Singh

Applicant

Torture Claims Appeal Board

1st Putative Respondent

Director of Immigration

2nd Putative Respondent

Procedural Posture

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

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Director and the Board erred in law or acted procedurally unfairly in rejecting the Applicant's non-refoulement claim
  2. 2 Whether the Applicant was denied adequate opportunity to present evidence at screening or appeal
  3. 3 Whether alleged bias or unfair attitude by decision-makers vitiates the decisions

Ratio Decidendi

Leave refused because the Applicant failed to identify any arguable legal error, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the Director's and Board's decisions; credibility findings were supported, the risk was assessed as low, and reasonable internal relocation and state protection were available, so there was no realistic prospect of success on judicial review.

Court Disposition

Leave to apply for judicial review refused.

Orders

  • Leave to apply for judicial review refused.