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

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

Leave to apply for judicial review refused because the applicant failed to identify any error of law or procedural unfairness, the Board's adverse credibility findings were rational and open to the Board on the evidence, and the applicant had no reasonable prospect of success on judicial review.

Citation
[2020] HKCFI 1847
Parties
Applicant: Sandhu Navdeep 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
4 August 2020
Case Number
HCAL1917/2018
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review / Leave Application Refused
Outcome
Leave to apply for judicial review refused; application dismissed
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, Torture and CIDTP, Credibility Assessment, Leave to Apply for Judicial Review, Procedural Fairness, State Protection, Internal Relocation, Standard of Review
Source Language
EN
Constitutional Law Administrative Law Immigration Law Human Rights Law Non Refoulement Torture and CIDTP Credibility Assessment Leave to Apply for Judicial Review +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 5 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Sandhu Navdeep 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 / Leave Application Refused

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Board erred in law in its credibility findings
  2. 2 Whether there was procedural unfairness in the Director/Board process
  3. 3 Whether the applicant established a real risk of torture, death or persecution if returned

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to apply for judicial review refused because the applicant failed to identify any error of law or procedural unfairness, the Board's adverse credibility findings were rational and open to the Board on the evidence, and the applicant had no reasonable prospect of success on judicial review.

Court Disposition

Leave to apply for judicial review refused; application dismissed

Orders

  • Leave to apply for judicial review refused
  • Application dismissed