DO THI NGOAN AND ANOTHER v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD [Decision on Leave Application]

DO THI NGOAN AND ANOTHER v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD [Decision on Leave Application]

Leave refused because the applicants failed to identify any reasonably arguable legal error, irrationality or procedural unfairness in the Director's and Board's decisions; the Board's adverse credibility findings were supported by detailed reasoning and oral evidence; potential minor‑specific concerns were considered and no unadvanced grounds were identified; internal relocation and state protection were available, so no arguable non‑refoulement claim remained.

Citation
[2026] HKCFI 1155
Parties
1st Applicant: Do Thi Ngoan; 2nd Applicant: Do Gia Bao; 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
HCAL1556/2020
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review (non Refoulement) / Leave Application Refused
Outcome
Leave to apply for judicial review refused
Legal Topics
Non‑refoulement, Torture Risk (part VIIC Immigration Ordinance), Credibility Assessment, Internal Relocation, Minor‑specific Non‑refoulement Issues, Judicial Review Leave
Source Language
EN
Administrative Law Constitutional Law Immigration Law Human Rights Law Non‑refoulement Torture Risk (part VIIC Immigration Ordinance) Credibility Assessment 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 4 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Do Thi Ngoan

1st Applicant

Do Gia Bao

2nd Applicant

Torture Claims Appeal Board

Putative Respondent

Director of Immigration

Putative Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review (non Refoulement) / Leave Application Refused

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether there was any reasonably arguable legal error, irrationality or procedural unfairness in the Board's decision
  2. 2 Whether the Board's adverse credibility findings were challengeable on judicial review
  3. 3 Whether the Board failed to apply high standards of fairness to the minor claimant in absence of legal representation

Ratio Decidendi

Leave refused because the applicants failed to identify any reasonably arguable legal error, irrationality or procedural unfairness in the Director's and Board's decisions; the Board's adverse credibility findings were supported by detailed reasoning and oral evidence; potential minor‑specific concerns were considered and no unadvanced grounds were identified; internal relocation and state protection were available, so no arguable non‑refoulement claim remained.

Court Disposition

Leave to apply for judicial review refused

Orders

  • Leave for the 1st and 2nd Applicants to apply for judicial review refused