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

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

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the Board's decision contained no error of law or procedural unfairness, the credibility findings based on inconsistencies were open to the Board, state protection and internal relocation were viable alternatives, and the applicant had no realistic prospect of success; the decision was not Wednesbury unreasonable.

Citation
[2022] HKCFI 1687
Parties
Applicant: Bui Thi Phan; 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
23 June 2022
Case Number
HCAL494/2019
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review / Leave Application (refused)
Outcome
Leave to apply for judicial review refused; application dismissed.
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, Torture/cidtp, Persecution, Credibility Assessment, Procedural Fairness, Internal Relocation, State Protection, Wednesbury Unreasonableness
Source Language
EN
Constitutional Law Administrative Law Immigration Law Human Rights Law Refugee Law Non Refoulement Torture/cidtp Persecution +5 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 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Bui Thi Phan

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 committed error of law in its credibility assessment
  2. 2 Whether there was procedural unfairness (including failure to obtain medical examination)
  3. 3 Whether state protection and internal relocation were viable alternatives

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the Board's decision contained no error of law or procedural unfairness, the credibility findings based on inconsistencies were open to the Board, state protection and internal relocation were viable alternatives, and the applicant had no realistic prospect of success; the decision was not Wednesbury unreasonable.

Court Disposition

Leave to apply for judicial review refused; application dismissed.

Orders

  • Leave to apply for judicial review refused.
  • Application dismissed.