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

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

Extension of time refused and leave dismissed because delay of more than three years was inordinate with no adequate explanation, the intended grounds were unarguable (no identified legal error, irrationality or procedural unfairness in Board's decision), state protection and internal relocation made non‑refoulement...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2023] HKCFI 2302
Parties
Applicant: Sukhwinder Singh; Putative Respondent: Torture Claims Appeal Board; Putative Interested Party: Director of Immigration
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
11 September 2023
Case Number
HCAL66/2021
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review / Decision on Application for Leave (extension of Time Refused and Leave 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 (articles 2 and 3), Internal Relocation, Extension of Time for Judicial Review, Judicial Review Leave
Source Language
en
Constitutional Law Administrative Law Immigration Law Human Rights Law Non‑refoulement Torture Risk Hong Kong Bill of Rights (articles 2 and 3) Internal Relocation +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 5 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Sukhwinder Singh

Applicant

Torture Claims Appeal Board

Putative Respondent

Director of Immigration

Putative Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review / Decision on Application for Leave (extension of Time Refused and Leave Dismissed)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether to extend time for bring an application for leave under Order 53 r 4(1)
  2. 2 Whether the intended judicial review has reasonably arguable merits
  3. 3 Whether the appellant faces real risk of torture, death or other serious ill‑treatment on return (non‑refoulement)

Ratio Decidendi

Extension of time refused and leave dismissed because delay of more than three years was inordinate with no adequate explanation, the intended grounds were unarguable (no identified legal error, irrationality or procedural unfairness in Board's decision), state protection and internal relocation made non‑refoulement protection unjustified, and the applicant subsequently confirmed he no longer sought asylum.

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