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

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

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the Board's adverse credibility and factual findings were open to it on the evidence, there was no error of law, irrationality or procedural unfairness, the applicant's challenge was vague and unsubstantiated and there were no substantial grounds to believe he faced a real risk of proscribed harm if refouled.

Citation
[2020] HKCFI 2388
Parties
Applicant: Lovepreet 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 September 2020
Case Number
HCAL924/2018
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review (leave Application) / Leave Stage (refused)
Outcome
Leave to apply for judicial review refused.
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, Torture/cidtp, Credibility Assessment, Procedural Fairness, Refoulement
Source Language
EN
Constitutional and Administrative Law Immigration Law Human Rights Law Non Refoulement Torture/cidtp Credibility Assessment Procedural Fairness Refoulement

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 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Lovepreet 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) / Leave Stage (refused)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether leave should be granted to judicially review the Board's decision refusing non-refoulement protection
  2. 2 Whether the Board's adverse credibility findings and fact‑finding were irrational or infected by error of law or procedural unfairness
  3. 3 Whether alleged past ill‑treatment met the legal threshold for torture/CIDTP

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the Board's adverse credibility and factual findings were open to it on the evidence, there was no error of law, irrationality or procedural unfairness, the applicant's challenge was vague and unsubstantiated and there were no substantial grounds to believe he faced a real risk of proscribed harm if refouled.

Court Disposition

Leave to apply for judicial review refused.

Orders

  • Leave to apply for judicial review refused.