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

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

The Board accepted the applicant's primary facts but, on assessment of risk, state protection and internal relocation, reasonably concluded there was no real or substantial risk of proscribed harm; no error of law, irrationality or procedural unfairness was shown, therefore leave to apply for judicial review is refused.

Citation
[2020] HKCFI 2636
Parties
Applicant: Tanroop 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
15 October 2020
Case Number
HCAL956/2018
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review Leave Application / Leave Application (refused)
Outcome
Leave to apply for judicial review refused.
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, Asylum, Torture, Internal Relocation, State Protection, Judicial Review Leave
Source Language
EN
Immigration Constitutional Law Administrative Law Human Rights Non Refoulement Asylum Torture 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 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Tanroop Singh

Applicant

Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office

Putative Respondent

Director of Immigration

Putative Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review Leave Application / Leave Application (refused)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Board erred in law or acted unfairly in rejecting the non-refoulement claim
  2. 2 Whether the applicant faces a real or substantial risk of proscribed harm if returned
  3. 3 Whether effective state protection and internal relocation were available

Ratio Decidendi

The Board accepted the applicant's primary facts but, on assessment of risk, state protection and internal relocation, reasonably concluded there was no real or substantial risk of proscribed harm; no error of law, irrationality or procedural unfairness was shown, therefore leave to apply for judicial review is refused.

Court Disposition

Leave to apply for judicial review refused.

Orders

  • Leave to apply for judicial review refused.