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

RAVINDER SINGH 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 failed to identify any arguable error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the Board's Decision; the Board's adverse credibility findings and assessment that risk was low and that state protection/internal relocation were available were within its fact‑finding remit and not Wednesbury unreasonable, so no realistic prospect of success was shown.

Citation
[2022] HKCFI 848
Parties
Applicant: Ravinder 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
31 March 2022
Case Number
HCAL748/2019
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review Leave Application / Leave Application (refused)
Outcome
Leave to apply for judicial review refused; application dismissed
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, Torture/cidtp Risk, Internal Relocation, Credibility Assessment, Procedural Fairness
Source Language
EN
Immigration Law Constitutional Law Administrative Law Human Rights Law Non Refoulement Torture/cidtp Risk Internal Relocation Credibility Assessment +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 5 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ravinder Singh

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 Application (refused)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Board erred in assessing risk of torture/CIDTP and risk to life under BOR
  2. 2 Whether state protection and internal relocation were reasonably available
  3. 3 Whether the Board's adverse credibility findings were procedurally unfair or Wednesbury irrational

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the applicant failed to identify any arguable error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the Board's Decision; the Board's adverse credibility findings and assessment that risk was low and that state protection/internal relocation were available were within its fact‑finding remit and not Wednesbury unreasonable, so no realistic prospect of success was shown.

Court Disposition

Leave to apply for judicial review refused; application dismissed

Orders

  • Leave refused
  • Application dismissed