SINGH HARJIT v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD [Decision on Leave Application]

SINGH HARJIT v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD [Decision on Leave Application]

Leave refused because the applicant failed to identify any reasonably arguable error of law, irrationality or procedural unfairness in the Board’s and Director’s decisions; the Board’s adverse credibility findings and conclusions that the risk was low and that state protection and internal relocation were available were rational and supported by the record, so there was no prospect of success on judicial review.

Citation
[2025] HKCFI 5708
Parties
Applicant: Singh Harjit; Putative Respondent: Torture Claims Appeal Board; Putative Interested Party: Director of Immigration
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
27 November 2025
Case Number
HCAL643/2021
Procedural Posture
Leave to Apply for Judicial Review (non‑refoulement/torture Claim) / Leave Application Refused
Outcome
Leave to apply for judicial review refused.
Legal Topics
Non‑refoulement, Torture Risk, Internal Relocation, Credibility Assessment, Procedural Fairness, Leave to Apply for Judicial Review
Source Language
EN
Constitutional Law Administrative Law Immigration Law Human Rights Law Non‑refoulement Torture Risk Internal Relocation Credibility Assessment +2 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 3 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Singh Harjit

Applicant

Torture Claims Appeal Board

Putative Respondent

Director of Immigration

Putative Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Leave to Apply for Judicial Review (non‑refoulement/torture Claim) / Leave Application Refused

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether leave to apply for judicial review should be granted
  2. 2 Whether the Board or Director committed an error of law, irrationality or procedural unfairness in rejecting the non‑refoulement claim
  3. 3 Whether the applicant faces a real risk of torture, death or persecution on return to India

Ratio Decidendi

Leave refused because the applicant failed to identify any reasonably arguable error of law, irrationality or procedural unfairness in the Board’s and Director’s decisions; the Board’s adverse credibility findings and conclusions that the risk was low and that state protection and internal relocation were available were rational and supported by the record, so there was no prospect of success on judicial review.

Court Disposition

Leave to apply for judicial review refused.

Orders

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