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

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

Leave was refused because the application was filed almost two years late without good reason, there was no reasonably arguable error of law, irrationality or procedural unfairness in the Director's or Board's decisions, the risk assessment was properly for the administrative decision‑makers (who found state protection and internal relocation available), and the Applicant later confirmed it was safe to return, so there was no prospect of success to justify extension of time or grant of leave.

Citation
[2021] HKCFI 2957
Parties
Applicant: Talwinder Singh; Putative Respondent: Torture Claims Appeal Board; Putative Interested Party: Director of Immigration
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
30 September 2021
Case Number
HCAL929/2020
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review / Decision on Leave Application
Outcome
Application for leave to apply for judicial review dismissed.
Legal Topics
Non‑refoulement, Torture and Article 3 HKBOR, Right to Life Article 2 HKBOR, Internal Relocation, State/police Protection, Limitation and Extension of Time for Judicial Review, Standard of Review for Administrative Decisions, Procedural Fairness
Source Language
EN
Constitutional and Administrative Law Immigration Law Human Rights Law Refugee and Non Refoulement Law Public Law Non‑refoulement Torture and Article 3 HKBOR Right to Life Article 2 HKBOR +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 5 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Talwinder 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 Leave Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the leave application was made promptly and within the three‑month time limit under Order 53 r 4(1) HCO Cap 4 and if not whether time should be extended
  2. 2 Whether there was any reasonably arguable ground of error of law, irrationality or procedural unfairness in the Director's and the Board's decisions to justify leave
  3. 3 Whether the risk of harm from local non‑state actors was such as to attract non‑refoulement protection taking into account state protection and internal relocation

Ratio Decidendi

Leave was refused because the application was filed almost two years late without good reason, there was no reasonably arguable error of law, irrationality or procedural unfairness in the Director's or Board's decisions, the risk assessment was properly for the administrative decision‑makers (who found state protection and internal relocation available), and the Applicant later confirmed it was safe to return, so there was no prospect of success to justify extension of time or grant of leave.

Court Disposition

Application for leave to apply for judicial review dismissed.

Orders

  • The application for leave to apply for judicial review is dismissed.