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

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

The applicant failed to demonstrate any realistic prospect of success because the Board's findings (no evidence of intent to harm, no state involvement, risks local, state protection available, internal relocation viable) were supported by evidence and there was no error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality; therefore leave to apply for judicial review is refused.

Citation
[2026] HKCFI 2158
Parties
Applicant: Paramdeep 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
15 April 2026
Case Number
HCAL1614/2021
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review (leave to Apply) / Leave Application Refused
Outcome
Leave to apply for judicial review refused; application dismissed.
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, Torture / CIDTP, Persecution, Internal Relocation, Judicial Review, Procedural Fairness
Source Language
EN
Constitutional Law Administrative Law Immigration Law Human Rights Law Refugee Law Non Refoulement Torture / CIDTP Persecution +3 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 11 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Paramdeep Singh

Applicant

Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office

Putative Respondent

Director of Immigration

Putative Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review (leave to Apply) / Leave Application Refused

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Board's Decision was irrational or fettered its discretion
  2. 2 Whether the Board breached duty of care to the applicant
  3. 3 Whether the Board relied on inadmissible or hearsay material and outdated cases

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant failed to demonstrate any realistic prospect of success because the Board's findings (no evidence of intent to harm, no state involvement, risks local, state protection available, internal relocation viable) were supported by evidence and there was no error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality; therefore leave to apply for judicial review is refused.

Court Disposition

Leave to apply for judicial review refused; application dismissed.

Orders

  • Leave to apply for judicial review refused.
  • Application dismissed.