DANG THI MINH THU v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD [Decision on Leave Application]

DANG THI MINH THU v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD [Decision on Leave Application]

Leave was refused because the Director and the Board lawfully and reasonably assessed the claim: adverse credibility findings were supported by oral evidence, the risk was localized with available state protection and feasible internal relocation, and the applicant failed to identify any legal error, irrationality...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2021] HKCFI 3399
Parties
Applicant: Dang Thi Minh Thu; Putative Respondent: Torture Claims Appeal Board; Putative Interested Party: Director of Immigration
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
12 November 2021
Case Number
HCAL120/2019
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review / Leave Refused
Outcome
Leave to apply for judicial review refused.
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, Risk of Torture, Credibility Findings, Internal Relocation, Judicial Review Leave, Procedural Fairness
Source Language
en
Constitutional Law Administrative Law Immigration Law Human Rights Law Non Refoulement Risk of Torture Credibility Findings Internal Relocation +2 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 8 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Dang Thi Minh Thu

Applicant

Torture Claims Appeal Board

Putative Respondent

Director of Immigration

Putative Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review / Leave Refused

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant faces a real risk of torture, inhuman or degrading treatment or persecution if returned to Vietnam
  2. 2 Whether state protection or reasonable internal relocation is available to avoid the risk
  3. 3 Whether the Board or Director committed error of law, irrationality or procedural unfairness warranting judicial review

Ratio Decidendi

Leave was refused because the Director and the Board lawfully and reasonably assessed the claim: adverse credibility findings were supported by oral evidence, the risk was localized with available state protection and feasible internal relocation, and the applicant failed to identify any legal error, irrationality or procedural unfairness that would give rise to an arguable case for judicial review.

Court Disposition

Leave to apply for judicial review refused.

Orders

  • Leave to apply for judicial review refused.