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

SATINDERPAL 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 arguable or realistic prospect of success: the Board's factual findings (personal land dispute, availability of state protection, BOR2 and BOR3 not engaged) were not shown to involve error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality and the supervisory court will not re‑weigh those findings.

Citation
[2025] HKCFI 5608
Parties
Applicant: Satinderpal 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
1 December 2025
Case Number
HCAL1170/2025
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review / Leave Stage — Application Refused
Outcome
Leave to apply for judicial review refused; application dismissed.
Legal Topics
Non‑refoulement, Torture Risk, Article 2 HKBOR (right to Life), Article 3 HKBOR (cidtp), State Protection, Judicial Review, Leave to Apply for Judicial Review, Procedural Fairness
Source Language
EN
Constitutional Law Administrative Law Immigration Law Human Rights Law Non‑refoulement Torture Risk Article 2 HKBOR (right to Life) Article 3 HKBOR (cidtp) +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 6 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Satinderpal 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 Stage — Application Refused

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant has a realistic prospect of success to justify leave for judicial review
  2. 2 Whether the Board erred in law, acted irrationally or committed procedural unfairness in dismissing the non‑refoulement/torture claim
  3. 3 Whether state protection and internal relocation were reasonably available

Ratio Decidendi

Leave was refused because the applicant failed to demonstrate any arguable or realistic prospect of success: the Board's factual findings (personal land dispute, availability of state protection, BOR2 and BOR3 not engaged) were not shown to involve error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality and the supervisory court will not re‑weigh those findings.

Court Disposition

Leave to apply for judicial review refused; application dismissed.

Orders

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