VU THI NGOC AND ANOTHER v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD [Decision on Leave Application]

VU THI NGOC AND ANOTHER v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD [Decision on Leave Application]

The leave application was dismissed because the applicants' grounds were bald, vague and lacked particulars making them not reasonably arguable; the Director and Board made findings that the risk was localized, stemmed from a private monetary dispute, involved credibility issues, and that state protection and internal relocation were available, and those findings disclosed no legal error, procedural unfairness or irrationality; applicants additionally affirmed it was safe to return.

Citation
[2024] HKCFI 1831
Parties
1st Applicant: Vu Thi Ngoc; 2nd Applicant: Hoang Van Quan; Putative Respondent: Torture Claims Appeal Board; Putative Interested Party: Director of Immigration
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
23 July 2024
Case Number
HCAL649/2023
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review / Decision on Leave Application
Outcome
Leave to apply for judicial review dismissed
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, Risk of Torture, Persecution, Procedural Fairness, Wednesbury Unreasonableness, Credibility Assessment, Internal Relocation, Country of Origin Information (coi)
Source Language
EN
Constitutional Law Administrative Law Immigration Law Human Rights Law Non Refoulement Risk of Torture Persecution Procedural Fairness +4 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 8 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Vu Thi Ngoc

1st Applicant

Hoang Van Quan

2nd Applicant

Torture Claims Appeal Board

Putative Respondent

Director of Immigration

Putative Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review / Decision on Leave Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicants established an arguable case of real risk of harm or torture on return
  2. 2 Whether the Board and Director applied the correct legal standards and afforded procedural fairness
  3. 3 Whether state acquiescence or corruption negates availability of state protection

Ratio Decidendi

The leave application was dismissed because the applicants' grounds were bald, vague and lacked particulars making them not reasonably arguable; the Director and Board made findings that the risk was localized, stemmed from a private monetary dispute, involved credibility issues, and that state protection and internal relocation were available, and those findings disclosed no legal error, procedural unfairness or irrationality; applicants additionally affirmed it was safe to return.

Court Disposition

Leave to apply for judicial review dismissed

Orders

  • The 1st and 2nd Applicants’ application for leave to apply for judicial review be dismissed.