LE VAN THANH AND ANOTHER v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD [Decision on Leave Application]

LE VAN THANH AND ANOTHER v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD [Decision on Leave Application]

Leave was refused because the applicants failed to identify any reasonably arguable legal error, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the Director's or Board's decisions; both decision-makers reasonably concluded the risk was localized, police protection and internal relocation were available, and therefore there was no arguable basis for judicial review.

Citation
[2020] HKCFI 2414
Parties
1st Applicant: Le Van Thanh; 2nd Applicant: Lam Thi Hang; Putative Respondent: Torture Claims Appeal Board; Putative Interested Party: Director of Immigration
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
23 September 2020
Case Number
HCAL1080/2018
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review (leave Application) / Leave Application Refused
Outcome
Leave to apply for judicial review refused.
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, Torture Risk, HKBOR Articles 2 and 3, Internal Relocation, Procedural Fairness, Standard of Judicial Review
Source Language
EN
Constitutional Law Administrative Law Immigration Law Human Rights Law Non Refoulement Torture Risk HKBOR Articles 2 and 3 Internal Relocation +2 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 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Le Van Thanh

1st Applicant

Lam Thi Hang

2nd Applicant

Torture Claims Appeal Board

Putative Respondent

Director of Immigration

Putative Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review (leave Application) / Leave Application Refused

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Board or Director made legal or procedural errors susceptible to judicial review
  2. 2 Whether applicants face a real risk of torture, persecution or violation of non-derogable rights on return to Vietnam
  3. 3 Whether effective state/police protection or reasonable internal relocation is available

Ratio Decidendi

Leave was refused because the applicants failed to identify any reasonably arguable legal error, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the Director's or Board's decisions; both decision-makers reasonably concluded the risk was localized, police protection and internal relocation were available, and therefore there was no arguable basis for judicial review.

Court Disposition

Leave to apply for judicial review refused.

Orders

  • Leave to apply for judicial review refused.