RANDHIR SINGH v. MS JANE CURZON LO [Decision on Leave Application]

RANDHIR SINGH v. MS JANE CURZON LO [Decision on Leave Application]

The applicant failed to establish arguable, substantive grounds for judicial review because the Adjudicator lawfully and rationally assessed credibility and facts presented at the hearing; credibility findings and the Board's evaluation of evidence are matters for the primary decision makers and are not to be...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2019] HKCFI 133
Parties
Applicant: Randhir Singh; Putative Respondent: Ms Jane Curzon Lo; Putative Interested Party: Director of Immigration
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
23 January 2019
Case Number
HCAL193/2018
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review of Board Decision on Non Refoulement / Notification of Judge's Decision Refusing Leave (order 53 R.3)
Outcome
Leave to apply for judicial review refused and application dismissed
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, Torture and CIDTP, Judicial Review, Credibility Assessment, Leave to Apply for Judicial Review
Source Language
en
Constitutional Law Administrative Law Immigration Law Human Rights Law Non Refoulement Torture and CIDTP Judicial Review Credibility Assessment +1 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 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Randhir Singh

Applicant

Ms Jane Curzon Lo

Putative Respondent

Director of Immigration

Putative Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review of Board Decision on Non Refoulement / Notification of Judge's Decision Refusing Leave (order 53 R.3)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Adjudicator conducted an unfair hearing and owed greater care to a self-represented litigant
  2. 2 Whether lack of interpreter or late service of hearing bundle amounted to procedural unfairness
  3. 3 Whether the Adjudicator erred in assessing state protection in India and relied on outdated hearsay material

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant failed to establish arguable, substantive grounds for judicial review because the Adjudicator lawfully and rationally assessed credibility and facts presented at the hearing; credibility findings and the Board's evaluation of evidence are matters for the primary decision makers and are not to be usurped by the court, therefore leave is refused.

Court Disposition

Leave to apply for judicial review refused and application dismissed

Orders

  • Leave to apply for judicial review refused
  • Applicant's application dismissed