PHAM THI BAC AND ANOTHER v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE [Decision on Leave Application]

PHAM THI BAC AND ANOTHER v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE [Decision on Leave Application]

Leave was refused because the Board correctly applied the law, conducted a fair process, gave reasoned credibility findings based on material inconsistencies, and alternatively reasonably concluded internal relocation and absence of state involvement mitigated risk; no arguable error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality was demonstrated and the proposed judicial review had no realistic prospect of success.

Citation
[2025] HKCFI 1959
Parties
1st Applicant: Pham Thi Bac; 2nd Applicant (minor): Luu Viet Hoang; 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
19 May 2025
Case Number
HCAL1451/2023
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review / Leave Application Refused
Outcome
Leave to apply for judicial review refused
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, Torture, Unified Screening Mechanism (usm), Judicial Review, Credibility Assessment, Internal Relocation, Procedural Fairness, Wednesbury Unreasonableness
Source Language
EN
Immigration Law Administrative Law Constitutional Law Human Rights Law Non Refoulement Torture Unified Screening Mechanism (usm) Judicial Review +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 5 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Pham Thi Bac

1st Applicant

Luu Viet Hoang

2nd Applicant (minor)

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 Board and Director committed errors of law
  2. 2 Whether there was procedural unfairness in the Board's process
  3. 3 Whether the Board's decision was irrational or Wednesbury unreasonable

Ratio Decidendi

Leave was refused because the Board correctly applied the law, conducted a fair process, gave reasoned credibility findings based on material inconsistencies, and alternatively reasonably concluded internal relocation and absence of state involvement mitigated risk; no arguable error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality was demonstrated and the proposed judicial review had no realistic prospect of success.

Court Disposition

Leave to apply for judicial review refused

Orders

  • Leave to apply for judicial review refused