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

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

The application for leave was dismissed because it was brought six months out of time beyond the statutory three-month period without any good reason to extend time: the Board's decision had been sent to the applicant's reported address, the applicant's asserted non-receipt was unsupported and attributable to his failure to reside at the reported address; furthermore the Adjudicator's credibility findings and decisions were not Wednesbury unreasonable and there was no procedural unfairness, so no arguable merit justified extension or leave.

Citation
[2019] HKCFI 532
Parties
Applicant: Pardeep Singh; 1st Putative Respondent: Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office; 2nd Putative Respondent: Director of Immigration
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
6 March 2019
Case Number
HCAL710/2018
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review (non Refoulement) / Decision on Leave Application and Extension of Time (refused)
Outcome
Extension of time for application for leave refused; Leave to apply for judicial review dismissed.
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, Torture/cat, Leave to Apply for Judicial Review, Extension of Time, Procedural Fairness and Language Assistance, Credibility Findings, Internal Relocation, Country of Origin Information, Wednesbury Unreasonableness
Source Language
EN
Immigration Administrative Law Constitutional Law Human Rights Refugee/asylum Non Refoulement Torture/cat Leave to Apply for Judicial Review +6 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 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Pardeep Singh

Applicant

Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office

1st Putative Respondent

Director of Immigration

2nd Putative Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review (non Refoulement) / Decision on Leave Application and Extension of Time (refused)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the application for leave was out of time and whether time should be extended
  2. 2 Whether the Director's decision was susceptible to judicial review once appeal to the Board was pursued
  3. 3 Standard of review in non-refoulement cases (enhanced scrutiny vs appellate role of Board)

Ratio Decidendi

The application for leave was dismissed because it was brought six months out of time beyond the statutory three-month period without any good reason to extend time: the Board's decision had been sent to the applicant's reported address, the applicant's asserted non-receipt was unsupported and attributable to his failure to reside at the reported address; furthermore the Adjudicator's credibility findings and decisions were not Wednesbury unreasonable and there was no procedural unfairness, so no arguable merit justified extension or leave.

Court Disposition

Extension of time for application for leave refused; Leave to apply for judicial review dismissed.

Orders

  • Extension of time for application for leave to apply for judicial review of the Board's decision dated 12 July 2017 refused
  • Leave to apply for judicial review dismissed