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

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

Leave was refused because the applicant raised no arguable error of law or procedural unfairness in the Board's decision, the Board's findings on credibility, low risk of serious harm, availability of state protection and internal relocation were reasonable and not Wednesbury unreasonable, and the applicant had no realistic prospect of success.

Citation
[2022] HKCFI 489
Parties
Applicant: Kuldeep Singh; Putative Respondent: Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office; Putative Interested Party: Director of Immigration
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
28 February 2022
Case Number
HCAL1508/2018
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review — Leave Application / Decision Refusing Leave to Apply for Judicial Review
Outcome
Leave to apply for judicial review refused; application dismissed.
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, Torture Risk, Right to Life (hkbor), Refugee Convention Protection, Judicial Review Leave, State Protection, Internal Relocation, Procedural Fairness
Source Language
EN
Immigration Law Administrative Law Constitutional Law Human Rights Law Non Refoulement Torture Risk Right to Life (hkbor) Refugee Convention Protection +4 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 8 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Kuldeep Singh

Applicant

Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office

Putative Respondent

Director of Immigration

Putative Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review — Leave Application / Decision Refusing Leave to Apply for Judicial Review

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Board erred in law or acted irrationally or procedurally unfairly in rejecting the applicant's non-refoulement/torture/BOR2/BOR3/persecution claims
  2. 2 Whether state protection and internal relocation rendered the applicant's risk assertions non-credible
  3. 3 Whether the applicant has a realistic prospect of success on judicial review

Ratio Decidendi

Leave was refused because the applicant raised no arguable error of law or procedural unfairness in the Board's decision, the Board's findings on credibility, low risk of serious harm, availability of state protection and internal relocation were reasonable and not Wednesbury unreasonable, and the applicant had no realistic prospect of success.

Court Disposition

Leave to apply for judicial review refused; application dismissed.

Orders

  • Leave to apply for judicial review refused
  • Application dismissed