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

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

Leave refused because the Board accepted the applicant's primary facts but reasonably found no real risk of proscribed harm, that state protection and internal relocation were viable, and there was no error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the Board's decision; the applicant's bare assertions provided no reasonably arguable ground for review.

Citation
[2020] HKCFI 2474
Parties
Applicant: Narinder 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
8 October 2020
Case Number
HCAL936/2018
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review (non Refoulement) / Leave Application Refused
Outcome
Leave to apply for judicial review refused.
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, Torture/cidtp, Internal Relocation, State Protection, Standard of Judicial Review, Procedural Fairness
Source Language
EN
Constitutional and Administrative Law Immigration Law Human Rights Law Asylum and Refugee Law Non Refoulement Torture/cidtp Internal Relocation State Protection +2 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 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Narinder 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 (non Refoulement) / Leave Application Refused

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Board erred in law in rejecting the non-refoulement claim
  2. 2 Whether there was a real risk of proscribed harm if the applicant were refouled
  3. 3 Whether state protection and internal relocation were viable options

Ratio Decidendi

Leave refused because the Board accepted the applicant's primary facts but reasonably found no real risk of proscribed harm, that state protection and internal relocation were viable, and there was no error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the Board's decision; the applicant's bare assertions provided no reasonably arguable ground for review.

Court Disposition

Leave to apply for judicial review refused.

Orders

  • Leave to apply for Judicial Review be refused.