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

PARMINDER KUMAR 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 produced no evidence to show a reasonable chance of success; the Board’s findings that the claim was unsubstantiated, that state protection and internal relocation were available, and that there was no police collusion or attempt to kill were not shown to involve any error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality.

Citation
[2021] HKCFI 820
Parties
Applicant: Parminder Kumar; 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
31 March 2021
Case Number
HCAL1362/2018
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review (leave Application) / Leave Refused (consideration on Papers)
Outcome
Leave to apply for judicial review refused; application dismissed.
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, Torture Risk, Refugee Convention Article 33 (persecution), Internal Relocation, Judicial Review Leave, Standard of Review (wednesbury/irrationality)
Source Language
EN
Immigration Law Administrative Law Constitutional Law Human Rights Law Non Refoulement Torture Risk Refugee Convention Article 33 (persecution) Internal Relocation +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 3 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Parminder Kumar

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 (consideration on Papers)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Board erred in law or committed procedural unfairness in rejecting non-refoulement/torture/persecution claims
  2. 2 Whether there were substantial grounds to believe applicant faced real and substantial risk of torture, CIDTP or persecution on return
  3. 3 Whether state protection and internal relocation were viable options

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the applicant produced no evidence to show a reasonable chance of success; the Board’s findings that the claim was unsubstantiated, that state protection and internal relocation were available, and that there was no police collusion or attempt to kill were not shown to involve any error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality.

Court Disposition

Leave to apply for judicial review refused; application dismissed.

Orders

  • Leave to apply for Judicial Review refused
  • Application dismissed