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

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

The court refused leave because the TCAB adjudicator properly reheard the case, applied the correct legal tests, rationally concluded the risks were personal disputes not amounting to torture, CIDTP, persecution or violation of right to life, and the decisions were not Wednesbury unreasonable; therefore the leave application was not reasonably arguable.

Citation
[2019] HKCFI 2139
Parties
Applicant: Lakhwinder 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
9 September 2019
Case Number
HCAL1710/2018
Procedural Posture
Leave to Apply for Judicial Review (immigration/non Refoulement) / Application for Leave Refused on Papers
Outcome
Leave to apply for judicial review refused.
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, Torture/cat, Article 3 Iccpr/cidtp, Right to Life Article 2 Bor/iccpr, Wednesbury Unreasonableness, Judicial Review Leave Threshold, Procedural Fairness
Source Language
EN
Constitutional Law Administrative Law Immigration Law Human Rights Law Refugee Law Non Refoulement Torture/cat Article 3 Iccpr/cidtp +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 6 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Lakhwinder Singh

Applicant

Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office

Putative Respondent

Director of Immigration

Putative Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Leave to Apply for Judicial Review (immigration/non Refoulement) / Application for Leave Refused on Papers

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether applicant faces a real and personal risk of torture as defined by CAT/Immigration Ordinance
  2. 2 Whether applicant faces risk of CIDTP under Article 3 BOR/ICCPR
  3. 3 Whether applicant faces persecution for a Convention reason under the 1951 Refugee Convention (non-refoulement)

Ratio Decidendi

The court refused leave because the TCAB adjudicator properly reheard the case, applied the correct legal tests, rationally concluded the risks were personal disputes not amounting to torture, CIDTP, persecution or violation of right to life, and the decisions were not Wednesbury unreasonable; therefore the leave application was not reasonably arguable.

Court Disposition

Leave to apply for judicial review refused.

Orders

  • Refuse leave to apply for judicial review