LUONG THANH DIEP AND ANOTHER v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE [Decision on Leave Application]

LUONG THANH DIEP AND ANOTHER v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE [Decision on Leave Application]

The Board's adverse credibility findings and factual conclusions that the claims were a private loan dispute, that injuries did not reach requisite severity, and that state protection and internal relocation were available were rational and free of legal error or procedural unfairness; therefore the applicants had no realistic prospect of success on judicial review and leave was properly refused.

Citation
[2023] HKCFI 2517
Parties
1st Applicant: Luong Thanh Diep; 2nd Applicant: Hoang Thi Thoa; 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
12 October 2023
Case Number
HCAL1195/2019
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 (immigration Ordinance Part Viic), Right to Life (hkbor Article 2), CIDTP (hkbor Article 3), State Protection, Internal Relocation, Credibility Findings, Wednesbury Unreasonableness, Procedural Fairness
Source Language
EN
Constitutional and Administrative Law Immigration Law Human Rights Law Refugee Law Judicial Review Non Refoulement Torture Risk (immigration Ordinance Part Viic) Right to Life (hkbor Article 2) +6 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 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Luong Thanh Diep

1st Applicant

Hoang Thi Thoa

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 acted procedurally unfairly in dismissing the applicants' non-refoulement and related human rights claims
  2. 2 Whether the Board's adverse credibility findings were irrational or Wednesbury unreasonable
  3. 3 Whether state protection or internal relocation rendered the applicants' claims unsustainable

Ratio Decidendi

The Board's adverse credibility findings and factual conclusions that the claims were a private loan dispute, that injuries did not reach requisite severity, and that state protection and internal relocation were available were rational and free of legal error or procedural unfairness; therefore the applicants had no realistic prospect of success on judicial review and leave was properly refused.

Court Disposition

Leave to apply for judicial review refused; joint application dismissed.

Orders

  • Leave to apply for judicial review refused.
  • Joint application dismissed.