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

MEHAR 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 application was unduly delayed by nine months without an acceptable explanation, the delay was substantial and the substantive complaints were not reasonably arguable: the Adjudicator's decision was reached after adequate procedure, was not...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2018] HKCFI 2121
Parties
Applicant: Mehar 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
24 September 2018
Case Number
HCAL128/2018
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, Torture, Asylum, Procedural Fairness, Extension of Time, Leave to Apply for Judicial Review
Source Language
en
Immigration Law Administrative Law Constitutional Law Human Rights Law Non Refoulement Torture Asylum Procedural Fairness +2 more

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 15 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mehar 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 / Leave Application (refused)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the application for leave was made within the statutory time or there is good reason to extend time
  2. 2 Whether the Adjudicator/Board acted with procedural unfairness
  3. 3 Whether the Adjudicator made errors of law or Wednesbury-unreasonable findings on credibility, state protection and internal relocation

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the application was unduly delayed by nine months without an acceptable explanation, the delay was substantial and the substantive complaints were not reasonably arguable: the Adjudicator's decision was reached after adequate procedure, was not Wednesbury-unreasonable, the Director had addressed BOR2, and no prejudice or public interest justified extending time.

Court Disposition

Leave to apply for judicial review refused.

Orders

  • Leave to apply for judicial review refused.