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

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

The adjudicator lawfully and reasonably evaluated the evidence and applicable law, concluded the applicant's complaints reflected a private commercial dispute involving non-State actors without Convention or BOR grounds, found State protection in India available, identified no procedural unfairness or legal error and applied the correct standard of review; therefore the claim was not reasonably arguable and leave to apply for judicial review was refused.

Citation
[2018] HKCFI 586
Parties
Applicant: Rajpreet 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
23 March 2018
Case Number
HCAL405/2017
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review / Decision on Leave Application (refused)
Outcome
Leave to apply for judicial review refused
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, Torture/cidtp, State Protection, Wednesbury Unreasonableness, Leave to Apply for Judicial Review, Procedural Fairness, Country of Origin Information
Source Language
EN
Constitutional Law Administrative Law Immigration Law Human Rights Law Refugee Law Non Refoulement Torture/cidtp State Protection +4 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 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Rajpreet 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 / Decision on Leave Application (refused)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the adjudicator erred in law in assessing torture risk under the Immigration Ordinance
  2. 2 Whether the applicant established a real risk under BOR s8 Article 2 (right to life) or Article 3 (prohibition of torture/CIDTP)
  3. 3 Whether the facts amount to persecution under the 1951 Refugee Convention (Articles 33 and 1A(2))

Ratio Decidendi

The adjudicator lawfully and reasonably evaluated the evidence and applicable law, concluded the applicant's complaints reflected a private commercial dispute involving non-State actors without Convention or BOR grounds, found State protection in India available, identified no procedural unfairness or legal error and applied the correct standard of review; therefore the claim was not reasonably arguable and leave to apply for judicial review was refused.

Court Disposition

Leave to apply for judicial review refused

Orders

  • Leave to apply for judicial review refused
  • Application dismissed