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

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

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the applicants advanced no arguable grounds of legal error or procedural unfairness and the Board's adverse credibility and factual findings were supported by reason, common sense and country information, meeting the enhanced Wednesbury standard so the proposed review had no realistic prospect of success.

Citation
[2026] HKCFI 1127
Parties
1st Applicant: Ngo Thi Huong; 2nd Applicant: Vu Quoc Huy; 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
26 February 2026
Case Number
HCAL678/2021
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, Unified Screening Mechanism, Judicial Review, Wednesbury Unreasonableness
Source Language
EN
Constitutional and Administrative Law Immigration Law Human Rights Non Refoulement Unified Screening Mechanism Judicial Review Wednesbury Unreasonableness

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 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ngo Thi Huong

1st Applicant

Vu Quoc Huy

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's decision contained 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 to apply for judicial review was refused because the applicants advanced no arguable grounds of legal error or procedural unfairness and the Board's adverse credibility and factual findings were supported by reason, common sense and country information, meeting the enhanced Wednesbury standard so the proposed review had no realistic prospect of success.

Court Disposition

Leave to apply for judicial review refused

Orders

  • Form 86 amended on the Court’s own motion
  • Leave to apply for Judicial Review be refused