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

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

Leave was refused because the Applicant failed to identify any arguable legal error, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the Director's or Board's decisions; the Board's adverse credibility finding following oral evidence was rational and the availability of internal relocation negated justification for non-refoulement protection.

Citation
[2021] HKCFI 1550
Parties
Applicant: Vikramjit Singh; Putative Respondent: Torture Claims Appeal Board; Putative Interested Party: Director of Immigration
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
31 May 2021
Case Number
HCAL1073/2018
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review Leave Application / Leave Refused
Outcome
Leave to apply for judicial review refused.
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, Torture/article 3 BOR, Right to Life/article 2 BOR, Credibility Findings, Internal Relocation, Judicial Review Standard
Source Language
EN
Constitutional Law Administrative Law Immigration Law Human Rights Law Asylum Law Non Refoulement Torture/article 3 BOR Right to Life/article 2 BOR +3 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 2 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Vikramjit Singh

Applicant

Torture Claims Appeal Board

Putative Respondent

Director of Immigration

Putative Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review Leave Application / Leave Refused

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Board erred in law or acted irrationally in rejecting the non-refoulement claim
  2. 2 Whether the Applicant established a real and substantial risk of harm if returned to India
  3. 3 Whether internal relocation in India is a reasonable alternative

Ratio Decidendi

Leave was refused because the Applicant failed to identify any arguable legal error, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the Director's or Board's decisions; the Board's adverse credibility finding following oral evidence was rational and the availability of internal relocation negated justification for non-refoulement protection.

Court Disposition

Leave to apply for judicial review refused.

Orders

  • Leave to apply for judicial review refused.