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

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

Leave was refused because the applicant failed to identify arguable grounds or make full and frank disclosure in Form 86 and did not demonstrate any error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the Board's findings that the past ill-treatment was not serious and that state protection and internal...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2025] HKCFI 4759
Parties
Applicant: Bui Van Luu; 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
21 October 2025
Case Number
HCAL1450/2020
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review / Determination on Documents Under O.53 R.3 (no Oral Hearing)
Outcome
Application for leave to apply for judicial review dismissed; Form 86 amended on the court's own motion to name the proper respondent and interested party.
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, Torture Claim, Leave to Apply for Judicial Review, Standard of Review on Judicial Review, State Protection and Internal Relocation
Source Language
en
Administrative Law Immigration Law Human Rights Constitutional Law Non Refoulement Torture Claim Leave to Apply for Judicial Review Standard of Review on Judicial Review +1 more

Source-derived case record

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 9 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Bui Van Luu

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 / Determination on Documents Under O.53 R.3 (no Oral Hearing)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Board erred in law, acted with procedural unfairness or reached irrational findings in dismissing the non-refoulement claim
  2. 2 Whether past ill-treatment gave rise to a real risk of harm on return
  3. 3 Whether effective state protection and internal relocation were reasonably available

Ratio Decidendi

Leave was refused because the applicant failed to identify arguable grounds or make full and frank disclosure in Form 86 and did not demonstrate any error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the Board's findings that the past ill-treatment was not serious and that state protection and internal relocation were reasonably available, such that the intended challenge was not reasonably arguable with realistic prospects of success.

Court Disposition

Application for leave to apply for judicial review dismissed; Form 86 amended on the court's own motion to name the proper respondent and interested party.

Orders

  • The Form 86 be amended on the court's own motion.
  • The applicant's application for leave to apply for judicial review be dismissed.