DINH THI MAI TRUC AND ANOTHER v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD [Decision on Leave Application]

DINH THI MAI TRUC AND ANOTHER v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD [Decision on Leave Application]

Leave was refused because the applicants failed to identify any reasonably arguable legal error, irrationality or procedural unfairness in the Director's or Board's decisions; the Board's factual findings that the risk was localized, private in nature, and negated by state protection and internal relocation were properly reached, and there were no minor-specific grounds to require representation or remittal for the child applicant.

Citation
[2026] HKCFI 1156
Parties
1st Applicant: Dinh Thi Mai Truc; 2nd Applicant: Dinh Chun Kit; Putative Respondent: Torture Claims Appeal Board; Putative Interested Party: Director of Immigration
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
25 February 2026
Case Number
HCAL1598/2020
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review / Decision on Leave (refused)
Outcome
Leave to apply for judicial review refused.
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, Torture Risk, Screening and Appeal Process, Children's Rights in Immigration Proceedings, Internal Relocation, Judicial Review Leave
Source Language
EN
Constitutional and Administrative Law Immigration Law Human Rights Law Non Refoulement Torture Risk Screening and Appeal Process Children's Rights in Immigration Proceedings Internal Relocation +1 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 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Dinh Thi Mai Truc

1st Applicant

Dinh Chun Kit

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 (refused)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Board erred in law or procedurally in rejecting the non-refoulement claims
  2. 2 Whether threats from a private creditor amount to torture/persecution or a real risk to life
  3. 3 Whether state protection and internal relocation are available and sufficient

Ratio Decidendi

Leave was refused because the applicants failed to identify any reasonably arguable legal error, irrationality or procedural unfairness in the Director's or Board's decisions; the Board's factual findings that the risk was localized, private in nature, and negated by state protection and internal relocation were properly reached, and there were no minor-specific grounds to require representation or remittal for the child applicant.

Court Disposition

Leave to apply for judicial review refused.

Orders

  • Leave to apply for judicial review refused