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

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

The court refused to extend time because the applicant was four months late with no satisfactory explanation and the intended application had no arguable grounds or identifiable legal error; the Director and the Board had lawfully and reasonably found no real or substantial risk, state protection and reasonable internal relocation were available, and therefore there was no prospect of success; leave was dismissed.

Citation
[2020] HKCFI 1352
Parties
Applicant: Sukhdev Singh; Putative Respondent: Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
5 August 2020
Case Number
HCAL367/2018
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review (leave Application) / Leave Application Refused and Dismissed
Outcome
Extension of time refused; application for leave to apply for judicial review dismissed
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, Torture Risk, Hong Kong Bill of Rights Article 2, Hong Kong Bill of Rights Article 3, Internal Relocation, Extension of Time, Delay, Judicial Review Standard, Leave to Apply for Judicial Review, Procedural Fairness
Source Language
EN
Constitutional Law Administrative Law Immigration Law Human Rights Law Public Law Non Refoulement Torture Risk Hong Kong Bill of Rights Article 2 +7 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 5 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Sukhdev Singh

Applicant

Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office

Putative Respondent

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review (leave Application) / Leave Application Refused and Dismissed

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether to extend time for applying for leave to apply for judicial review
  2. 2 Whether the intended judicial review disclosed any arguable/legal error
  3. 3 Whether the Director and the Board correctly assessed risk of torture/persecution and availability of state protection

Ratio Decidendi

The court refused to extend time because the applicant was four months late with no satisfactory explanation and the intended application had no arguable grounds or identifiable legal error; the Director and the Board had lawfully and reasonably found no real or substantial risk, state protection and reasonable internal relocation were available, and therefore there was no prospect of success; leave was dismissed.

Court Disposition

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

Orders

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