MANJINDER SINGH v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD [Decision on Leave Application]

MANJINDER SINGH v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD [Decision on Leave Application]

The court dismissed the leave application because the applicant failed to particularize his grounds; the Board had carefully considered the evidence, made permissible factual findings that the case was a private grudge rather than state‑sponsored persecution, addressed COI and corruption issues, and committed no...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2025] HKCFI 4439
Parties
Applicant: Manjinder Singh; Putative Respondent: Torture Claims Appeal Board; Putative Interested Party: Director of Immigration
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
23 September 2025
Case Number
HCAL348/2020
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review / Leave Application (oral Hearing; Dismissed)
Outcome
Leave to apply for judicial review dismissed.
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, Torture, Wednesbury Unreasonableness, Judicial Review, Right to Life (bill of Rights Article 2)
Source Language
en
Constitutional and Administrative Law Immigration Human Rights Non Refoulement Torture Wednesbury Unreasonableness Judicial Review Right to Life (bill of Rights Article 2)

Source-derived case record

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 5 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Manjinder Singh

Applicant

Torture Claims Appeal Board

Putative Respondent

Director of Immigration

Putative Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review / Leave Application (oral Hearing; Dismissed)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Board's decision was Wednesbury unreasonable or irrational
  2. 2 Whether there was procedural unfairness in the Board's hearing
  3. 3 Whether the applicant faced a real risk of torture or arbitrary deprivation of life if returned to India

Ratio Decidendi

The court dismissed the leave application because the applicant failed to particularize his grounds; the Board had carefully considered the evidence, made permissible factual findings that the case was a private grudge rather than state‑sponsored persecution, addressed COI and corruption issues, and committed no error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality; accordingly the claim was not reasonably arguable and leave was refused.

Court Disposition

Leave to apply for judicial review dismissed.

Orders

  • Putative respondent amended to Torture Claims Appeal Board.
  • Director of Immigration added as putative interested party.