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

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

Leave was refused because the Board had properly considered the applicant's evidence and country information, made findings that the applicant's evidence was inconsistent, and there were no substantial grounds to believe he faced real risk of persecution, torture, death or CIDTP on return; state protection and...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2021] HKCFI 750
Parties
Applicant: Tarsem 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
25 March 2021
Case Number
HCAL1319/2018
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review / Leave Application (refused)
Outcome
Leave to apply for judicial review refused; application dismissed.
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, Torture, Persecution, Judicial Review, State Protection, Internal Relocation
Source Language
en
Immigration Law Constitutional Law Administrative Law Human Rights Law Refugee Law Non Refoulement Torture Persecution +3 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 6 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Tarsem 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 committed procedural unfairness or irrationality in rejecting the non-refoulement/torture/persecution claims
  2. 2 Whether there were substantial grounds to believe the applicant faced risk of torture, death or CIDTP (BOR 2 and BOR 3) on return to India
  3. 3 Whether state protection and internal relocation were viable options

Ratio Decidendi

Leave was refused because the Board had properly considered the applicant's evidence and country information, made findings that the applicant's evidence was inconsistent, and there were no substantial grounds to believe he faced real risk of persecution, torture, death or CIDTP on return; state protection and internal relocation were available; no error of law or procedural unfairness was shown and the decision was not Wednesbury unreasonable.

Court Disposition

Leave to apply for judicial review refused; application dismissed.

Orders

  • Leave to apply for judicial review refused
  • Application dismissed