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

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

Leave was refused because the Board's factual findings—that the harm arose from a private monetary dispute, that state protection was available and that internal relocation was viable—were not shown to involve any error of law, procedural unfairness or Wednesbury irrationality, and the applicant had no reasonable prospect of success on judicial review.

Citation
[2021] HKCFI 932
Parties
Applicant: Dang Thi Thao; 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 April 2021
Case Number
HCAL1418/2018
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review Leave Application / Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review (decided on Papers)
Outcome
Leave to apply for judicial review refused.
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, Torture, Internal Relocation, State Protection, Leave Application, Judicial Review Standard of Review, Wednesbury Unreasonableness
Source Language
EN
Immigration Constitutional Law Administrative Law Refugee Law Human Rights Non Refoulement Torture Internal Relocation +4 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 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Dang Thi Thao

Applicant

Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office

Putative Respondent

Director of Immigration

Putative Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review Leave Application / Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review (decided on Papers)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant faces a real risk of torture or death from private actors if returned to Vietnam
  2. 2 Whether the harm alleged qualifies as persecution or torture for non-refoulement purposes
  3. 3 Whether state protection in Vietnam is available and effective

Ratio Decidendi

Leave was refused because the Board's factual findings—that the harm arose from a private monetary dispute, that state protection was available and that internal relocation was viable—were not shown to involve any error of law, procedural unfairness or Wednesbury irrationality, and the applicant had no reasonable prospect of success on judicial review.

Court Disposition

Leave to apply for judicial review refused.

Orders

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