SHIVJIT SINGH v. IMMIGRATION DEPARTMENT [Decision on Leave Application]

SHIVJIT SINGH v. IMMIGRATION DEPARTMENT [Decision on Leave Application]

The application for leave was dismissed and time to apply was not extended because the applicant's delay (9–20 months) was substantial with no satisfactory explanation, the intended challenge lacked any reasonably arguable ground since the Board's adverse credibility finding and conclusions about low localized risk and availability of internal relocation were not shown to involve legal error or procedural unfairness, and therefore there was no prospect of success.

Citation
[2020] HKCFI 146
Parties
Applicant: Shivjit Singh; Putative Respondent: Immigration Department
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
6 May 2020
Case Number
HCAL300/2018
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review (non‑refoulement) / Leave Application Dismissed; Extension of Time Refused
Outcome
Application for leave to apply for judicial review dismissed; extension of time refused.
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, Leave to Apply for Judicial Review, Extension of Time, Credibility Findings, Internal Relocation, Torture Risk (part VIIC Immigration Ordinance), Article 3 Hong Kong Bill of Rights, Procedural Fairness, Country of Origin Information
Source Language
EN
Administrative Law Immigration Law Constitutional Law Human Rights Law Non Refoulement Leave to Apply for Judicial Review Extension of Time Credibility Findings +5 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 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Shivjit Singh

Applicant

Immigration Department

Putative Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review (non‑refoulement) / Leave Application Dismissed; Extension of Time Refused

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether to extend time for filing leave application under Order 53
  2. 2 Whether there is any reasonably arguable ground for judicial review
  3. 3 Whether the Board and Director committed an error of law or procedural unfairness

Ratio Decidendi

The application for leave was dismissed and time to apply was not extended because the applicant's delay (9–20 months) was substantial with no satisfactory explanation, the intended challenge lacked any reasonably arguable ground since the Board's adverse credibility finding and conclusions about low localized risk and availability of internal relocation were not shown to involve legal error or procedural unfairness, and therefore there was no prospect of success.

Court Disposition

Application for leave to apply for judicial review dismissed; extension of time refused.

Orders

  • Application for extension of time to apply for leave to apply for judicial review refused.
  • Application for leave to apply for judicial review dismissed.