Case Details

Citation

JAGANPREET SINGH v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD/NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE, HCAL 1613/2018

Case Number

HCAL 1613/2018

Court

Court of First Instance

(CFI)

Decision Date

6 December 2019

Parties

Applicant(s):

Jaganpreet Singh

Respondent(s):

Torture Claims Appeal Board/ Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office

JAGANPREET SINGH v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD/NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

[2019] HKCFI 2961

Court of First Instance6 December 2019

HCAL1613/2018 JAGANPREET SINGH v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD/NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

HCAL 1613/2018

[2019] HKCFI 2961

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST No. 1613 of 2018

BETWEEN

	Jaganpreet Singh	Applicant
	and
	Torture Claims Appeal Board/ Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office	Putative Respondent
	and
	Director of Immigration	Putative Interested Party

Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review
NOTIFICATION of the Judge’s decision (Ord. 53 r. 3)

Following;

	consideration of documents only; or
	consideration of documents and oral submission by the Applicant in open court;

Order by Deputy High Court Judge K.W. Lung:

Application for leave to apply for Judicial Review be dismissed.

Observations for the Applicant:

THE APPLICATION

1. This is the applicant’s application for leave to apply for judicial review of the Decision dated 7 August 2018 of the Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office (the “Board’s Decision”).

2. Pursuant to Order 20, rule 8 and Order 53, rule 3(6) of the Rules of the High Court, the Court, on its own motion, amended Form 86 by deleting the Immigration Department to be replaced by the Board as the respondent and by adding the Director of Immigration as the interested party.

The applicant

3. The applicant is an Indian national. He came to Hong Kong on 11 March 2016 as a visitor and was allowed to stay until 25 March 2016. He overstayed and surrendered to the Immigration Department on 1 April 2016. He lodged a non-refoulement claim on 14 June 2016.

4. He claimed that if refouled, he would be harmed or even killed by his paternal aunt, Manjit Kaur since he had a land dispute with her.

The Director’s Decisions

5. The Director considered his application in relation to the following risks:

a. risk of torture under Part VIIC of the Immigration Ordinance, Cap. 115, (“the Ordinance”) (“Torture risk”);

b. Article 2 of Section 8 of the Hong Kong Bill of Rights Ordinance, Cap. 383 (Risk of violation of the right to life) (“BOR 2 risk”);

c. risk of torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment (“CIDTP”) under Article 3 of section 8 of the HKBOR (“BOR 3 risk”); and

d. risk of persecution by reference to the non-refoulement principle under Article 33 of the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees and its 1967 Protocol (“Refugee Convention”) (“Persecution risk”).

6. By Notice of Decision dated 18 January 2018, the Director refused his claim for the reason that his claim was not substantiated.

The Board’s Decision

7. The applicant appealed to the Board against the Director’s Decision. He attended a hearing before the Adjudicator on 6 July 2018.

8. By the Board’s Decision, the Board rejected his appeal and confirmed the Director’s Decision.

Application for leave to apply for judicial review

9. The applicant filed Form 86 dated 13 August 2018 for leave to apply for judicial review of the Board’s Decision.

10. He appeared before me and applied for leave to withdraw his application. He confirmed that all his problems had resolved. He wanted to go back to India to see his mother, who had health problem.

11. I advised him that in the circumstances, if he withdrew his application on those grounds, his application would be dismissed and he would not be permitted to restore his application.

12. He agreed.

CONCLUSION

13. Accordingly, I dismiss his application.

Dated the 6^th day of December 2019

	(Mike Mak)
	for Registrar, High Court

Where leave to apply has been granted, Applicants and their legal advisers are reminded of their obligation to reconsider the merits of their application in the light of the Respondent’s evidence

Notes for the Applicant: If leave has been granted, the Applicant or the Applicant’s solicitors must:
a) serve on the respondent and such interested parties as may be directed by the Court the order granting leave and any directions given within 14 days after the leave was granted (Order 53, rule 4A); b) issue the originating summons within 14 days after the grant of leave and serve it in accordance with Order 53, rule 5; and c) supply to every other party copies of every affidavit which the Applicant proposes to use at the hearing, including the affidavit in support of the application for leave (Order 53, rule 6(5)).		Sent to the Applicant on 6/12/2019 Jaganpreet Singh Applicant’s ref. no: Nil.		Sent to the Putative Respondent / the Putative Respondent’s solicitors / such Putative Interested Parties as may be directed by the Court / the Putative Interested Parties’ solicitors on 6/12/2019 Torture Claims Appeal Board/ Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office Putative Respondent’s ref. no.: USM 10006/18/1/279/IN1879 Director of Immigration Putative Interested Party’s ref. no.: QA T/C 3279/17 (formerly RBCZ 12273/16) Department of Justice, Senior Assistant Law Office (Civil Law) (Civil Litigation Unit 2)

JAGANPREET SINGH v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD/NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

Citation

Court

Procedural posture

Issues

Holdings

Legal principles

Disposition