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

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

Leave was refused because the applicant's grounds were broad, vague and lacking particularisation; no reasonably arguable legal error, procedural unfairness or irrationality was identified in the Director's and the Board's decisions; the Board's adverse credibility findings following oral evidence were justified; and the risk was localized with reasonable internal relocation available, so no prospect of success on judicial review existed.

Citation
[2020] HKCFI 300
Parties
Applicant: Manpreet Singh; 1st Putative Respondent: The Director of Immigration; 2nd Putative Respondent: The Adjudicator of the Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
14 July 2020
Case Number
HCAL1327/2018
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review (non Refoulement) / Leave Stage — Refused
Outcome
Leave to apply for judicial review refused.
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, Torture Risk, Credibility Assessment, Internal Relocation, Judicial Review Standard of Review, Procedural Fairness, State Acquiescence, Wednesbury Unreasonableness
Source Language
EN
Constitutional Law Administrative Law Immigration Law Human Rights Law International Refugee Law Non Refoulement Torture Risk Credibility Assessment +5 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 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Manpreet Singh

Applicant

The Director of Immigration

1st Putative Respondent

The Adjudicator of the Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office

2nd Putative Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review (non Refoulement) / Leave Stage — Refused

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Director and the Board erred in law or were procedurally unfair in rejecting the non-refoulement claim
  2. 2 Whether state acquiescence or collusion by police made the applicant at risk and whether that was improperly discounted
  3. 3 Whether relevant Country of Origin Information was ignored or selectively relied upon

Ratio Decidendi

Leave was refused because the applicant's grounds were broad, vague and lacking particularisation; no reasonably arguable legal error, procedural unfairness or irrationality was identified in the Director's and the Board's decisions; the Board's adverse credibility findings following oral evidence were justified; and the risk was localized with reasonable internal relocation available, so no prospect of success on judicial review existed.

Court Disposition

Leave to apply for judicial review refused.

Orders

  • Leave to apply for judicial review refused.