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

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

Leave was refused because the applicant failed to demonstrate any realistic prospect of success; the Board's findings on risk and the viability of internal relocation were within its fact-finding remit and did not exhibit error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality.

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2026] HKCFI 2778
Parties
Applicant: Sandeep 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
20 May 2026
Case Number
HCAL1541/2021
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review / Decision on Leave Application (refused)
Outcome
Leave to apply for judicial review refused.
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, Torture and CIDTP Risk, Internal Relocation, Judicial Review Leave Stage, Procedural Fairness, Standard of Review
Source Language
en
Administrative Law Constitutional Law Immigration Law Human Rights Law Refugee Law Non Refoulement Torture and CIDTP Risk Internal Relocation +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 3 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Sandeep Singh

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 / Decision on Leave Application (refused)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Board erred in law in assessing risk of torture or CIDTP under HKBOR Article 3
  2. 2 Whether the Board erred in law in assessing risk to life under HKBOR Article 2 and persecution under Refugee Convention Article 33
  3. 3 Whether internal relocation was viable and sufficient to mitigate BOR 3 risk

Ratio Decidendi

Leave was refused because the applicant failed to demonstrate any realistic prospect of success; the Board's findings on risk and the viability of internal relocation were within its fact-finding remit and did not exhibit error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality.

Court Disposition

Leave to apply for judicial review refused.

Orders

  • Leave to apply for judicial review refused; application dismissed.