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

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

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the applicant failed to show any arguable or realistic prospect of success; the Board's findings on risk, state protection, internal relocation and credibility involved no error of law, procedural unfairness or Wednesbury unreasonableness and therefore did not justify judicial review.

Citation
[2022] HKCFI 1056
Parties
Applicant: Sukhdeep Kaur; 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
25 April 2022
Case Number
HCAL603/2019
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review / Decision on Leave Application (refused)
Outcome
Leave to apply for judicial review refused; application dismissed
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, Torture, Right to Life (bor2), Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (bor3), Persecution, State Protection, Internal Relocation, Credibility Assessment, Judicial Review Standards
Source Language
EN
Immigration Law Constitutional Law Administrative Law Human Rights Law Non Refoulement Torture Right to Life (bor2) Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (bor3) +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 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Sukhdeep Kaur

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 / Decision on Leave Application (refused)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Board erred in law or committed procedural unfairness in rejecting the non-refoulement/torture/BOR claims
  2. 2 Whether there was a real risk to life or risk of torture/CIDTP from family members
  3. 3 Whether state protection and internal relocation were viable options

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the applicant failed to show any arguable or realistic prospect of success; the Board's findings on risk, state protection, internal relocation and credibility involved no error of law, procedural unfairness or Wednesbury unreasonableness and therefore did not justify judicial review.

Court Disposition

Leave to apply for judicial review refused; application dismissed

Orders

  • Leave to apply for judicial review refused
  • Application dismissed