SIDHU BALBIR SINGH v. THE ADJUDICATOR OF THE NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE [Decision on Leave Application]

SIDHU BALBIR SINGH v. THE ADJUDICATOR OF THE NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE [Decision on Leave Application]

The application for leave was dismissed because the applicant was more than five months late without explanation, there were no reasonably arguable grounds or prospects of success identified against the Director or the Board, and the Director and the Board applied the statutory provisions lawfully and fairly; accordingly there was no good reason to extend time.

Citation
[2019] HKCFI 815
Parties
Applicant: Sidhu Balbir Singh; Putative Respondent: The Adjudicator of the Non-Refoulement Claims Petition Office; Putative Interested Party: Immigration Department
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
20 September 2019
Case Number
HCAL601/2018
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review (immigration/non Refoulement) / Application for Leave Refused; Extension of Time Refused
Outcome
Extension of time refused; leave to apply for judicial review dismissed.
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, Torture Claim, Article 3 Hong Kong Bill of Rights (bor 3), Refugee Convention Article 33 (persecution Risk), Leave to Apply for Judicial Review, Extension of Time, Procedural Fairness, Unified Screening Mechanism, Deemed Withdrawal of Claim
Source Language
EN
Immigration Law Administrative Law Constitutional Law Human Rights Law Non Refoulement Torture Claim Article 3 Hong Kong Bill of Rights (bor 3) Refugee Convention Article 33 (persecution Risk) +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 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Sidhu Balbir Singh

Applicant

The Adjudicator of the Non-Refoulement Claims Petition Office

Putative Respondent

Immigration Department

Putative Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review (immigration/non Refoulement) / Application for Leave Refused; Extension of Time Refused

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the court should extend time for filing leave to apply for judicial review
  2. 2 Whether the Director and the Torture Claims Appeal Board erred in refusing to re-open the non-refoulement claim
  3. 3 Whether procedural fairness or legal error vitiated the decision of the Director or the Board

Ratio Decidendi

The application for leave was dismissed because the applicant was more than five months late without explanation, there were no reasonably arguable grounds or prospects of success identified against the Director or the Board, and the Director and the Board applied the statutory provisions lawfully and fairly; accordingly there was no good reason to extend time.

Court Disposition

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

Orders

  • Extension of time for the application for leave to apply for judicial review refused
  • Leave to apply for judicial review dismissed