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

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

Leave was refused because the applicant failed to demonstrate any arguable legal error, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the Director's and Board's decisions; the Board's credibility findings, conclusion that the risk was localized and availability of state protection and reasonable internal relocation meant there was no prospect of success on judicial review.

Citation
[2019] HKCFI 401
Parties
Applicant: Sukhjinder Singh; 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
4 April 2019
Case Number
HCAL606/2018
Procedural Posture
Leave to Apply for Judicial Review / Leave Application Refused
Outcome
Leave to apply for judicial review refused.
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, Torture/article 3 HKBOR, Right to Life (article 2 Hkbor), Internal Relocation, Credibility Findings, Judicial Review Standard
Source Language
EN
Constitutional Law Administrative Law Immigration Law Human Rights Law Non Refoulement Torture/article 3 HKBOR Right to Life (article 2 Hkbor) Internal Relocation +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
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Sukhjinder Singh

Applicant

Torture Claims Appeal Board/ Non-Refoulement Claims Petition Office

Putative Respondent

Director of Immigration

Putative Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Leave to Apply for Judicial Review / Leave Application Refused

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Director and the Torture Claims Appeal Board erred in law or acted irrationally or unfairly in rejecting the non-refoulement claim
  2. 2 Whether the applicant faces a real risk of torture or prohibited treatment on return (BOR Article 3) or persecution (1951 Convention Article 33)
  3. 3 Whether state protection or reasonable internal relocation are available to the applicant

Ratio Decidendi

Leave was refused because the applicant failed to demonstrate any arguable legal error, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the Director's and Board's decisions; the Board's credibility findings, conclusion that the risk was localized and availability of state protection and reasonable internal relocation meant 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.