NARINDER SINGH v. MS CHAN LING-LING TRACY, ESQ., TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE [Decision on Leave Application]

NARINDER SINGH v. MS CHAN LING-LING TRACY, ESQ., TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE [Decision on Leave Application]

The leave application was refused because the applicant advanced only broad, vague assertions without particulars; the Director and Board lawfully found the risk on return to India to be small, that state protection and reasonable internal relocation were available, and there was no procedural unfairness or error of law; therefore there was no real prospect of success on judicial review.

Citation
[2018] HKCFI 1605
Parties
Applicant: Narinder Singh; Putative Respondent: Ms Chan Ling-ling Tracy, Esq., 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
17 August 2018
Case Number
HCAL1081/2017
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review / Leave Application Decided (refused)
Outcome
Leave to apply for judicial review refused.
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, Torture Risk, Article 3 BOR, Procedural Fairness, Judicial Review Leave
Source Language
EN
Immigration Law Administrative Law Constitutional Law Human Rights Law Non Refoulement Torture Risk Article 3 BOR Procedural Fairness +1 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 5 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Narinder Singh

Applicant

Ms Chan Ling-ling Tracy, Esq., 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 Decided (refused)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Board and Director erred in law or procedure in rejecting a non-refoulement claim
  2. 2 Whether state protection and internal relocation in India were reasonably available
  3. 3 Whether the adjudicator failed to take into account or properly weigh Country of Origin Information (COI)

Ratio Decidendi

The leave application was refused because the applicant advanced only broad, vague assertions without particulars; the Director and Board lawfully found the risk on return to India to be small, that state protection and reasonable internal relocation were available, and there was no procedural unfairness or error of law; therefore there was no real prospect of success on judicial review.

Court Disposition

Leave to apply for judicial review refused.

Orders

  • Leave to apply for judicial review refused.
  • Notification of decision sent to parties on 17 August 2018.