KARDEEP SINGH v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD [Decision on Leave Application]

KARDEEP SINGH v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD [Decision on Leave Application]

Leave was refused because the Applicant failed to identify any arguable error in the Torture Claims Appeal Board’s findings; the Board’s factual conclusions (assaults not amounting to torture, lack of state involvement, viable internal relocation) were not shown to be legally erroneous and judicial review is not a...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2025] HKCFI 6247
Parties
Applicant: Kardeep Singh; Putative Respondent: Torture Claims Appeal Board; Putative Interested Party: Director of Immigration
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
22 December 2025
Case Number
HCAL64/2020
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review / Leave Application (dismissed)
Outcome
Leave to apply for judicial review dismissed.
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, Torture and CIDTP, Article 2 Hong Kong Bill of Rights (right to Life), Article 3 Hong Kong Bill of Rights (prohibition of Torture), Article 33 Refugee Convention (non Refoulement), Leave to Apply for Judicial Review, Scope of Judicial Review Vs Rehearing
Source Language
en
Immigration Law Constitutional Law Administrative Law Human Rights Law Non Refoulement Torture and CIDTP Article 2 Hong Kong Bill of Rights (right to Life) Article 3 Hong Kong Bill of Rights (prohibition of Torture) +3 more

Source-derived case record

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 7 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Kardeep Singh

Applicant

Torture Claims Appeal Board

Putative Respondent

Director of Immigration

Putative Interested Party

Procedural Posture

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

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether leave to apply for judicial review should be granted to challenge TCAB's decision on non-refoulement and related risks
  2. 2 Whether TCAB erred in law or made reviewable factual findings regarding torture, CIDTP, risk to life and persecution
  3. 3 Whether the Applicant identified arguable grounds of error to justify judicial review

Ratio Decidendi

Leave was refused because the Applicant failed to identify any arguable error in the Torture Claims Appeal Board’s findings; the Board’s factual conclusions (assaults not amounting to torture, lack of state involvement, viable internal relocation) were not shown to be legally erroneous and judicial review is not a rehearing of the merits of refoulement determinations.

Court Disposition

Leave to apply for judicial review dismissed.

Orders

  • Leave to apply for judicial review be dismissed.