SATINDER PAL SINGH v. JANE CURZON LO, ESQ. [Decision on Leave Application]

SATINDER PAL SINGH v. JANE CURZON LO, ESQ. [Decision on Leave Application]

On rigorous examination the Adjudicator gave an oral hearing, engaged with the applicant, considered relevant and updated COI, correctly assessed state protection and internal relocation, applied the correct legal standards and did not make errors of law or procedural unfairness; the claimed defects were unsubstantiated and the applicant had no realistic prospect of success, therefore leave to apply for judicial review is refused.

Citation
[2019] HKCFI 1903
Parties
Applicant: Satinder Pal Singh; Putative Respondent: Jane Curzon Lo; Putative Interested Party: Director of Immigration
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
2 August 2019
Case Number
HCAL669/2018
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review (non Refoulement Screening) / Leave Application Refused
Outcome
Leave to apply for judicial review refused.
Legal Topics
Non‑refoulement, Torture (cat), Right to Life (bor2), Cruel Inhuman Degrading Treatment (bor3), Procedural Fairness, Judicial Review Leave, State Protection and Internal Relocation
Source Language
EN
Immigration Law Constitutional and Administrative Law Human Rights Refugee and Non‑refoulement Law Non‑refoulement Torture (cat) Right to Life (bor2) Cruel Inhuman Degrading Treatment (bor3) +3 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 14 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Satinder Pal Singh

Applicant

Jane Curzon Lo

Putative Respondent

Director of Immigration

Putative Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review (non Refoulement Screening) / Leave Application Refused

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Adjudicator unlawfully fettered her discretion
  2. 2 Whether there was procedural unfairness in the Board hearing (including late bundle, lack of interpreter, inadequate legal representation)
  3. 3 Whether the decision was irrational or Wednesbury unreasonable

Ratio Decidendi

On rigorous examination the Adjudicator gave an oral hearing, engaged with the applicant, considered relevant and updated COI, correctly assessed state protection and internal relocation, applied the correct legal standards and did not make errors of law or procedural unfairness; the claimed defects were unsubstantiated and the applicant had no realistic prospect of success, therefore leave to apply for judicial review is refused.

Court Disposition

Leave to apply for judicial review refused.

Orders

  • Leave refused.