LE VAN HUNG AND OTHERS v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD [Decision on Leave Application]

LE VAN HUNG AND OTHERS v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD [Decision on Leave Application]

Leave refused because applicants failed to identify any reasonably arguable legal error, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the Director's and Board's decisions; the Board's adverse credibility findings were supported by the evidence and the Director and Board reasonably found state protection or internal relocation available, so there was no prospect of success on judicial review.

Citation
[2020] HKCFI 2339
Parties
1st Applicant: Le Van Hung; 2nd Applicant: Nguyen Thi Lan; 3rd Applicant: Le Duc Manh; Putative Respondent: Torture Claims Appeal Board; Putative Interested Party: Director of Immigration
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
18 September 2020
Case Number
HCAL903/2018
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review (non Refoulement/torture Claim) / Leave Application Refused
Outcome
Leave to apply for judicial review refused.
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, Torture Risk, Credibility Findings, Internal Relocation, Judicial Review Leave, Procedural Fairness, Standard of Review
Source Language
EN
Constitutional Law Administrative Law Immigration Law Human Rights Law Non Refoulement Torture Risk Credibility Findings Internal Relocation +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 3 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Le Van Hung

1st Applicant

Nguyen Thi Lan

2nd Applicant

Le Duc Manh

3rd Applicant

Torture Claims Appeal Board

Putative Respondent

Director of Immigration

Putative Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review (non Refoulement/torture Claim) / Leave Application Refused

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether there were reasonably arguable grounds to seek judicial review of the Torture Claims Appeal Board decision
  2. 2 Whether the Board and Director made legal errors or procedural unfairness in rejecting the non-refoulement claim
  3. 3 Whether adverse credibility findings were challengeable on judicial review

Ratio Decidendi

Leave refused because applicants failed to identify any reasonably arguable legal error, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the Director's and Board's decisions; the Board's adverse credibility findings were supported by the evidence and the Director and Board reasonably found state protection or internal relocation available, so there was no prospect of success on judicial review.

Court Disposition

Leave to apply for judicial review refused.

Orders

  • Leave to apply for judicial review refused.