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

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

Leave was refused because the Applicant failed to identify any reasonably arguable ground of unlawfulness, unreasonableness or procedural unfairness; the Director and Adjudicator applied the correct law, gave a fair hearing, their findings were open on the evidence and there was no realistic prospect of success.

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2018] HKCFI 2015
Parties
Applicant: Satnam 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
2 November 2018
Case Number
HCAL393/2018
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review / Leave Application (considered on the Papers); Leave Refused
Outcome
Leave to apply for judicial review refused.
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, Torture, Article 3 HKBORO, Article 2 HKBORO, 1951 Refugee Convention Article 33, Leave to Apply for Judicial Review, Procedural Fairness
Source Language
en
Administrative Law Constitutional Law Immigration Law Human Rights Law Non Refoulement Torture Article 3 HKBORO Article 2 HKBORO +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 5 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Satnam 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 (considered on the Papers); Leave Refused

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether there was any arguable ground of unlawfulness, unreasonableness or procedural unfairness to merit leave for judicial review
  2. 2 Whether the Director of Immigration and the Adjudicator applied the correct legal standards on torture, persecution and Bill of Rights claims
  3. 3 Whether the Applicant raised any specific procedural irregularity or materially arguable error of law

Ratio Decidendi

Leave was refused because the Applicant failed to identify any reasonably arguable ground of unlawfulness, unreasonableness or procedural unfairness; the Director and Adjudicator applied the correct law, gave a fair hearing, their findings were open on the evidence and there was no realistic prospect of success.

Court Disposition

Leave to apply for judicial review refused.

Orders

  • Leave to apply for Judicial Review is refused.