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

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

Leave refused because the applicants' grounds challenged factual credibility findings which are within the Board's exclusive remit, the Board correctly applied the law and COI, its findings satisfied the enhanced Wednesbury test, and there was no arguable error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality that would give the proposed judicial review realistic prospects of success.

Citation
[2025] HKCFI 2587
Parties
1st Applicant: Nguyen Thi May; 2nd Applicant: Hoang Khanh Ngan; 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 June 2025
Case Number
HCAL1407/2023
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review (non Refoulement) / Leave Application Refused (order Dated 19 June 2025)
Outcome
Leave to apply for judicial review refused.
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, Unified Screening Mechanism (usm), Judicial Review, State Protection, Internal Relocation, Credibility Findings, Wednesbury Unreasonableness
Source Language
EN
Constitutional and Administrative Law Immigration Law Human Rights Law Non Refoulement Unified Screening Mechanism (usm) Judicial Review State Protection 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 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Nguyen Thi May

1st Applicant

Hoang Khanh Ngan

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 (non Refoulement) / Leave Application Refused (order Dated 19 June 2025)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Board erred in law or acted irrationally in adverse credibility findings and risk assessment
  2. 2 Whether the Board gave inadequate weight to state acquiescence or state protection
  3. 3 Whether the Board procedurally unfairly assessed explanations or asked inappropriate questions

Ratio Decidendi

Leave refused because the applicants' grounds challenged factual credibility findings which are within the Board's exclusive remit, the Board correctly applied the law and COI, its findings satisfied the enhanced Wednesbury test, and there was no arguable error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality that would give the proposed judicial review realistic prospects of success.

Court Disposition

Leave to apply for judicial review refused.

Orders

  • Leave to apply for judicial review refused.