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

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

The application for extension of time and for leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the Board, having accepted the applicant's factual account, lawfully evaluated the evidence and correctly concluded there were no substantial grounds for risk of torture, CIDTP or violation of right to life, that state protection or internal relocation was available, and the proposed judicial review had no reasonable prospect of success.

Citation
[2020] HKCFI 762
Parties
Applicant: Sarabjit 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
12 May 2020
Case Number
HCAL1724/2018
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review / Interlocutory: Application for Extension of Time and for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review; Extension Refused and Leave Dismissed
Outcome
Extension of time refused; application for leave to apply for judicial review dismissed.
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, Torture Claims, Procedural Fairness, Extension of Time, Internal Relocation, Judicial Review Leave Requirement
Source Language
EN
Immigration Law Administrative Law Constitutional Law Human Rights Law Non Refoulement Torture Claims Procedural Fairness Extension of Time +2 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 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Sarabjit 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 / Interlocutory: Application for Extension of Time and for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review; Extension Refused and Leave Dismissed

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether extension of time should be granted for filing an application for leave to apply for judicial review
  2. 2 Whether the Board unlawfully fettered its discretion or acted unfairly in rejecting the non-refoulement claim
  3. 3 Whether the applicant established substantial grounds to believe he faced risk of torture, CIDTP or violation of right to life on return to India

Ratio Decidendi

The application for extension of time and for leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the Board, having accepted the applicant's factual account, lawfully evaluated the evidence and correctly concluded there were no substantial grounds for risk of torture, CIDTP or violation of right to life, that state protection or internal relocation was available, and the proposed judicial review had no reasonable prospect of success.

Court Disposition

Extension of time refused; application for leave to apply for judicial review dismissed.

Orders

  • Extension of time for application for leave to apply for judicial review refused
  • Application for leave to apply for judicial review dismissed