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

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

Leave was refused because the applicant failed to identify any arguable legal error; the Board's adverse credibility findings (implausibilities and contradictions) and its conclusions on low risk, availability of state protection and internal relocation were within the Board's province and not Wednesbury unreasonable, so there was no reasonable prospect of success for judicial review.

Citation
[2021] HKCFI 654
Parties
Applicant: Resham 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
18 March 2021
Case Number
HCAL1287/2018
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review Leave Application / Leave to Apply for Judicial Review Refused
Outcome
Leave to apply for judicial review refused; application dismissed
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, Torture, Persecution, Internal Relocation, Assessment of Evidence, Procedural Fairness, Wednesbury Unreasonableness
Source Language
EN
Immigration Constitutional Law Administrative Law Refugee Law Human Rights Non Refoulement Torture Persecution +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 4 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Resham 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 to Apply for Judicial Review Refused

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Board erred in law or committed procedural unfairness or irrationality in rejecting the applicant's non-refoulement/torture/persecution claims
  2. 2 Whether the applicant's evidence established a real risk of torture, CIDTP, death or persecution on return
  3. 3 Whether state protection and internal relocation were available and viable

Ratio Decidendi

Leave was refused because the applicant failed to identify any arguable legal error; the Board's adverse credibility findings (implausibilities and contradictions) and its conclusions on low risk, availability of state protection and internal relocation were within the Board's province and not Wednesbury unreasonable, so there was no reasonable prospect of success for judicial review.

Court Disposition

Leave to apply for judicial review refused; application dismissed

Orders

  • Leave to apply for judicial review refused.
  • Application dismissed.