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

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

Leave was refused because the applicant failed to demonstrate any error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the Board's factual findings and credibility conclusions, and therefore had no reasonable prospect of success on judicial review.

Citation
[2020] HKCFI 1589
Parties
Applicant: Cao Thi Sinh; 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
14 July 2020
Case Number
HCAL1845/2018
Procedural Posture
Leave to Apply for Judicial Review (immigration/non Refoulement) / Leave Refused (application Dismissed)
Outcome
Leave to apply for judicial review refused; application dismissed.
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, Torture Risk, State Protection, Internal Relocation, Judicial Review Leave, Credibility Assessment
Source Language
EN
Immigration Administrative Law Constitutional Law Human Rights Refugee Law Non Refoulement Torture Risk State Protection +3 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 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Cao Thi Sinh

Applicant

Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office

Putative Respondent

Director of Immigration

Putative Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Leave to Apply for Judicial Review (immigration/non Refoulement) / Leave Refused (application Dismissed)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Board erred in law or acted irrationally in rejecting the applicant's non-refoulement/torture claim
  2. 2 Whether the applicant established a real risk of torture or violation of BOR Articles 2 or 3 if returned
  3. 3 Whether state protection and internal relocation were available and viable

Ratio Decidendi

Leave was refused because the applicant failed to demonstrate any error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the Board's factual findings and credibility conclusions, and therefore had no reasonable prospect of success on judicial review.

Court Disposition

Leave to apply for judicial review refused; application dismissed.

Orders

  • Leave to apply for judicial review refused.
  • Applicant's application dismissed.