SUKHPREET SINGH v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITON OFFICE [Decision on Leave Application]

SUKHPREET SINGH v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITON OFFICE [Decision on Leave Application]

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the Board considered the evidence, gave adequate reasons, made findings not demonstrably irrational or Wednesbury unreasonable, and there was no arguable error of law or procedural unfairness and no realistic prospect of success.

Citation
[2021] HKCFI 3274
Parties
Applicant: Rasal Mohammad; 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
5 November 2021
Case Number
HCAL189/2019
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review / Consideration on Documents (order 53 R.3)
Outcome
Leave to apply for judicial review refused; application dismissed.
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, Torture/cidtp, Persecution (refugee Convention), Internal Relocation, Judicial Review, State Protection
Source Language
EN
Immigration Constitutional and Administrative Law Human Rights Non Refoulement Torture/cidtp Persecution (refugee Convention) Internal Relocation Judicial Review +1 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 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Rasal Mohammad

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 / Consideration on Documents (order 53 R.3)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Board erred in law or committed procedural unfairness in dismissing the non-refoulement claim
  2. 2 Whether the applicant faced real risk of torture or CIDTP on return
  3. 3 Whether the applicant faced a real risk to life (BOR Article 2)

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the Board considered the evidence, gave adequate reasons, made findings not demonstrably irrational or Wednesbury unreasonable, and there was no arguable error of law or procedural unfairness and no realistic prospect of success.

Court Disposition

Leave to apply for judicial review refused; application dismissed.

Orders

  • Leave to apply for judicial review refused
  • Application dismissed