SATNAM SINGH v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION AND ANOTHER [Decision on Leave Application]

SATNAM SINGH v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION AND ANOTHER [Decision on Leave Application]

Leave to apply for judicial review refused because under rigorous examination the Adjudicator provided adequate reasons, engaged in joint endeavour with the applicant, made credibility findings supported by inconsistencies and implausibilities, correctly applied COI and law regarding state protection and internal...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2018] HKCFI 2411
Parties
Applicant: Satnam Singh; 1st Putative Respondent: Director of Immigration; 2nd Putative Respondent: Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-Refoulement Claims Petition Office
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
20 November 2018
Case Number
HCAL167/2018
Procedural Posture
Leave Application for Judicial Review (non Refoulement Screening) / Application for Leave Refused
Outcome
Leave to apply for judicial review refused
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, Judicial Review Leave, Procedural Fairness, Credibility Assessment, Wednesbury Unreasonableness, Internal Relocation, State Protection, Screening and Appeal Process
Source Language
en
Constitutional Law Administrative Law Immigration Law Human Rights Law Refugee and Asylum Law Non Refoulement Judicial Review Leave Procedural Fairness +5 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 9 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Satnam Singh

Applicant

Director of Immigration

1st Putative Respondent

Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-Refoulement Claims Petition Office

2nd Putative Respondent

Procedural Posture

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

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether leave should be granted to judicially review the Board's refusal of non-refoulement claim
  2. 2 Whether the Adjudicator's credibility findings were unreasonable or perverse
  3. 3 Whether there was procedural unfairness in the Board's hearing (insufficient time/opportunity)

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to apply for judicial review refused because under rigorous examination the Adjudicator provided adequate reasons, engaged in joint endeavour with the applicant, made credibility findings supported by inconsistencies and implausibilities, correctly applied COI and law regarding state protection and internal relocation, and there was no procedural unfairness or Wednesbury unreasonableness; applicant has no realistic prospect of success.

Court Disposition

Leave to apply for judicial review refused

Orders

  • Leave to apply for judicial review is refused.