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

PARDEEP 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 applicant failed to show any arguable case: the Board's findings that the claim was unsubstantiated, that risk was low, that state protection was available and that internal relocation was viable were not shown to involve errors of law, procedural unfairness or Wednesbury irrationality, and therefore there was no reasonable chance of success on judicial review.

Citation
[2021] HKCFI 802
Parties
Applicant: Pardeep 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 April 2021
Case Number
HCAL1357/2018
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review (leave Application) / Leave Refused (application Considered on Paper)
Outcome
Leave to apply for judicial review refused; application dismissed.
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, Torture, Persecution, Internal Relocation, State Protection, Judicial Review Leave, Standard of Review (wednesbury), Hong Kong Bill of Rights Art 2 & 3
Source Language
EN
Constitutional Law Administrative Law Immigration Law Human Rights Refugee Law Non Refoulement Torture Persecution +5 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 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Pardeep Singh

Applicant

Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office

Putative Respondent

Director of Immigration

Putative Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review (leave Application) / Leave Refused (application Considered on Paper)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether there were substantial grounds to believe applicant faced real risk of torture or CIDTP (BOR 3) or risk to life (BOR 2) if returned to India
  2. 2 Whether applicant met threshold for persecution under Article 33 Refugee Convention
  3. 3 Whether state protection was available in India

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the applicant failed to show any arguable case: the Board's findings that the claim was unsubstantiated, that risk was low, that state protection was available and that internal relocation was viable were not shown to involve errors of law, procedural unfairness or Wednesbury irrationality, and therefore there was no reasonable chance of success on judicial review.

Court Disposition

Leave to apply for judicial review refused; application dismissed.

Orders

  • Leave to apply for Judicial Review refused.
  • Applicant's application dismissed.