SUKHPREET SINGH v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITON OFFICE [Decision on Leave Application]

SUKHPREET SINGH v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITON OFFICE [Decision on Leave Application]

Leave was refused because the Board rationally concluded that the applicant had failed to substantiate his non-refoulement claim by refusing to answer material questions at the hearing; there were no arguable errors of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality warranting judicial review.

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2021] HKCFI 3282
Parties
Applicant: Sukhpreet 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 November 2021
Case Number
HCAL265/2019
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review / Leave Application Refused
Outcome
Leave to apply for judicial review refused
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, Torture and CIDTP, Refugee Protection (article 33 1951 Convention), Leave to Apply for Judicial Review, Procedural Fairness, Standard of Review
Source Language
en
Immigration Law Constitutional Law Administrative Law Human Rights Law Non Refoulement Torture and CIDTP Refugee Protection (article 33 1951 Convention) Leave to Apply for Judicial Review +2 more

Source-derived case record

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 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Sukhpreet Singh

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 / Leave Application Refused

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Board erred in law or acted irrationally in rejecting the non-refoulement claim
  2. 2 Whether refusal by applicant to answer the Board's questions justified rejection for lack of substantiation
  3. 3 Whether there was procedural unfairness in the Board's hearing

Ratio Decidendi

Leave was refused because the Board rationally concluded that the applicant had failed to substantiate his non-refoulement claim by refusing to answer material questions at the hearing; there were no arguable errors of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality warranting judicial review.

Court Disposition

Leave to apply for judicial review refused

Orders

  • Leave to apply for judicial review refused