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

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

Leave was refused because the applicant failed to identify any arguable legal error or procedural unfairness in the Director's and the Board's decisions; both bodies lawfully and reasonably assessed the risk as localized with available internal relocation and properly questioned the applicant's credibility, so there was no realistic prospect of success on judicial review.

Citation
[2019] HKCFI 93
Parties
Applicant: Manjinder 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 January 2019
Case Number
HCAL299/2017
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review / Decision on Leave (refused)
Outcome
Leave to apply for judicial review refused.
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, Torture Risk, Article 2 HKBOR (right to Life), Article 3 HKBOR (prohibition of Torture), Internal Relocation, Credibility Assessment, Judicial Review Leave Threshold
Source Language
EN
Constitutional Law Administrative Law Immigration Law Human Rights Law Non Refoulement Torture Risk Article 2 HKBOR (right to Life) Article 3 HKBOR (prohibition of Torture) +3 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 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Manjinder Singh

Applicant

Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-Refoulement Claims Petition Office

Putative Respondent

Director of Immigration

Putative Interested Party

Procedural Posture

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

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant faces a real risk of torture or other non-derogable harm on return to India
  2. 2 Whether state protection is available or internal relocation is reasonable and accessible
  3. 3 Whether the Board and Director made legal or procedural errors amenable to judicial review

Ratio Decidendi

Leave was refused because the applicant failed to identify any arguable legal error or procedural unfairness in the Director's and the Board's decisions; both bodies lawfully and reasonably assessed the risk as localized with available internal relocation and properly questioned the applicant's credibility, so there was no realistic prospect of success on judicial review.

Court Disposition

Leave to apply for judicial review refused.

Orders

  • Leave refused