BUI THI LIEN v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD/ NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE [Decision on Leave Application]

BUI THI LIEN v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD/ NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE [Decision on Leave Application]

Leave refused because applicant did not establish any reasonably arguable public law ground; the Board's factual findings that risk was low and that state protection and internal relocation were available were neither irrational nor procedurally unfair, and the applicant's account did not meet the required severity threshold for protection.

Citation
[2021] HKCFI 256
Parties
Applicant: Bui Thi Lien; 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
1 February 2021
Case Number
HCAL1216/2018
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, Refugee and Asylum, Torture Convention (cat), Judicial Review Standard, State Protection, Internal Relocation
Source Language
EN
Constitutional and Administrative Law Immigration Law Human Rights Law Non Refoulement Refugee and Asylum Torture Convention (cat) Judicial Review Standard State Protection +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 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Bui Thi Lien

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 applicant had an arguable non-refoulement claim
  2. 2 Whether the Board erred in law, committed procedural unfairness or reached irrational findings
  3. 3 Whether state protection and internal relocation were available and viable

Ratio Decidendi

Leave refused because applicant did not establish any reasonably arguable public law ground; the Board's factual findings that risk was low and that state protection and internal relocation were available were neither irrational nor procedurally unfair, and the applicant's account did not meet the required severity threshold for protection.

Court Disposition

Leave to apply for judicial review refused

Orders

  • Leave to apply for judicial review refused