MANDEEP SINGH v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION AND ANOTHER [Decision on Leave Application]

MANDEEP SINGH v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION AND ANOTHER [Decision on Leave Application]

Leave refused because the court, on rigorous examination, found the Adjudicator conducted sufficient inquiry, considered COI, afforded the Applicant reasonable opportunity to present evidence, made findings supported by the record and law, and committed no error of law, procedural unfairness or Wednesbury unreasonableness; accordingly the Applicant had no reasonably arguable grounds and no realistic prospect of success.

Citation
[2018] HKCFI 2408
Parties
Applicant: Mandeep Singh; 1st Putative Respondent: Director of Immigration; 2nd Putative Respondent: Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
20 November 2018
Case Number
HCAL735/2017
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review / Leave Application (refused)
Outcome
Leave to apply for judicial review refused
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, Leave to Apply for Judicial Review, Procedural Fairness, Credibility Assessment, Internal Relocation, State Protection, Wednesbury Unreasonableness, Screening and Appeal Process
Source Language
EN
Administrative Law Constitutional Law Immigration Law Human Rights Law Refugee and Non Refoulement Law International Law (convention Against Torture) Non Refoulement Leave to Apply for Judicial Review +6 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 9 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mandeep Singh

Applicant

Director of Immigration

1st Putative Respondent

Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office

2nd Putative Respondent

Procedural Posture

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

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Adjudicator failed to make sufficient inquiry and thereby breached procedural fairness
  2. 2 Whether the Applicant was deprived of the opportunity to adduce evidence due to detention or ill health
  3. 3 Whether the Board erred in law or made an irrational/unreasonable decision on risk, credibility and state protection

Ratio Decidendi

Leave refused because the court, on rigorous examination, found the Adjudicator conducted sufficient inquiry, considered COI, afforded the Applicant reasonable opportunity to present evidence, made findings supported by the record and law, and committed no error of law, procedural unfairness or Wednesbury unreasonableness; accordingly the Applicant had no reasonably arguable grounds and no realistic prospect of success.

Court Disposition

Leave to apply for judicial review refused

Orders

  • Leave to apply for judicial review be refused