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

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

The Board made supported credibility and risk findings; there was no error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality in those findings; state protection and internal relocation were viable options; accordingly the applicant had no realistic prospect of success and leave to apply for judicial review was refused.

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2022] HKCFI 222
Parties
Applicant: Ramanpreet 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
21 January 2022
Case Number
HCAL1537/2018
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review — Leave to Apply (immigration/non Refoulement) / Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review Refused (consideration on Papers)
Outcome
Leave to apply for judicial review refused.
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, Torture, Persecution, State Protection, Internal Relocation, Judicial Review Leave, Credibility Assessment
Source Language
en
Immigration Law Administrative Law Constitutional Law Human Rights Law Non Refoulement Torture Persecution State Protection +3 more

Source-derived case record

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 7 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ramanpreet 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 (immigration/non Refoulement) / Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review Refused (consideration on Papers)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Board erred in law or committed procedural unfairness in dismissing the non-refoulement/torture claim
  2. 2 Whether the applicant's evidence was credible and substantiated such that risk of torture or death existed
  3. 3 Whether state protection and internal relocation were available and viable

Ratio Decidendi

The Board made supported credibility and risk findings; there was no error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality in those findings; state protection and internal relocation were viable options; accordingly the applicant had no realistic prospect of success 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.