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

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

Leave to apply for judicial review is refused because the adjudicator and Director committed no error of law, applied the correct legal principles including high standards of fairness for torture claims, made justified credibility findings, reasonably concluded state protection and internal relocation were...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2018] HKCFI 812
Parties
Applicant: Thakur Krishan 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
23 April 2018
Case Number
HCAL542/2017
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review / Decision on Papers After Reserved Oral Hearing (leave Stage)
Outcome
Leave to apply for judicial review refused
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, Torture and CIDTP, Article 2 and Article 3 Hong Kong Bill of Rights/iccpr, Refugee/persecution Risk, Leave to Apply for Judicial Review, Procedural Fairness and Duty of Disclosure, Credibility Assessment, Internal Relocation, Wednesbury Unreasonableness, Duty Lawyer Scheme
Source Language
en
Immigration Law Administrative Law Human Rights Law Constitutional Law Non Refoulement Torture and CIDTP Article 2 and Article 3 Hong Kong Bill of Rights/iccpr Refugee/persecution Risk +6 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 8 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Thakur Krishan 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 / Decision on Papers After Reserved Oral Hearing (leave Stage)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether leave to apply for judicial review should be granted
  2. 2 Whether the adjudicator and Director erred in law in rejecting non-refoulement/torture/persecution/BOR claims
  3. 3 Whether procedural unfairness occurred through lack of legal representation or translation

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to apply for judicial review is refused because the adjudicator and Director committed no error of law, applied the correct legal principles including high standards of fairness for torture claims, made justified credibility findings, reasonably concluded state protection and internal relocation were available, and the application was not reasonably arguable nor had a realistic prospect of success.

Court Disposition

Leave to apply for judicial review refused

Orders

  • Application for leave to apply for judicial review refused
  • Proceedings considered on the papers; decision reserved and dated 23 April 2018; application dismissed for lack of an arguable case