NGUYEN VAN ANH AND ANOTHER v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE [Decision on Leave Application]

NGUYEN VAN ANH AND ANOTHER v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE [Decision on Leave Application]

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the Board's adverse credibility findings were supported by the evidence and country information, there was no error of law or procedural unfairness in the Board's process, no material child-specific issue remained unconsidered that could give rise to non-refoulement grounds, and the applicants had no realistic prospect of success.

Citation
[2022] HKCFI 2996
Parties
1st Applicant: Nguyen Van Anh; 2nd Applicant: Nguyen Bao Chi Cherry; 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
29 September 2022
Case Number
HCAL1090/2019
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review / Leave Application (refused)
Outcome
Leave to apply for judicial review refused; joint application dismissed
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, Torture Risk, Article 2 HKBOR Right to Life, Article 3 HKBOR Cruel Inhuman or Degrading Treatment, Refugee Convention Article 33, Credibility Assessment, Judicial Review Leave
Source Language
EN
Constitutional Law Administrative Law Immigration Law Human Rights Law Non Refoulement Torture Risk Article 2 HKBOR Right to Life Article 3 HKBOR Cruel Inhuman or Degrading Treatment +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 4 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Nguyen Van Anh

1st Applicant

Nguyen Bao Chi Cherry

2nd 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 / Leave Application (refused)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Board erred in law or committed procedural unfairness in rejecting the applicants' non-refoulement and torture claims
  2. 2 Whether the 2nd applicant (a child) required separate consideration independent of the 1st applicant
  3. 3 Whether the Board's adverse credibility findings were Wednesbury unreasonable or irrational

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the Board's adverse credibility findings were supported by the evidence and country information, there was no error of law or procedural unfairness in the Board's process, no material child-specific issue remained unconsidered that could give rise to non-refoulement grounds, and the applicants had no realistic prospect of success.

Court Disposition

Leave to apply for judicial review refused; joint application dismissed

Orders

  • Leave for the Applicants to apply for Judicial Review refused
  • Joint application dismissed