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

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

Leave was refused because the applicant lacked a reasonable prospect of success: the Board's adverse credibility findings and factual conclusions that risk was low and that state protection and internal relocation were available were not shown to be legally erroneous, procedurally unfair or irrational.

Citation
[2021] HKCFI 845
Parties
Applicant: Dang Thi Thu; 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
1 April 2021
Case Number
HCAL1396/2018
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review (leave Application) / Leave Application (refused)
Outcome
Leave to apply for judicial review refused; application dismissed.
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, Torture and CIDTP, Risk Assessment, State Protection, Internal Relocation, Credibility Findings, Judicial Review Leave
Source Language
EN
Immigration Law Constitutional and Administrative Law Human Rights Non Refoulement Torture and CIDTP Risk Assessment State Protection Internal Relocation +2 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 5 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Dang Thi Thu

Applicant

Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office

Putative Respondent

Director of Immigration

Putative Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review (leave Application) / Leave Application (refused)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Board's decision contained errors of law or procedural unfairness or was irrational/Wednesbury unreasonable
  2. 2 Whether the applicant established a real risk of torture, CIDTP, or death on return
  3. 3 Whether state protection and internal relocation were reasonably available

Ratio Decidendi

Leave was refused because the applicant lacked a reasonable prospect of success: the Board's adverse credibility findings and factual conclusions that risk was low and that state protection and internal relocation were available were not shown to be legally erroneous, procedurally unfair or irrational.

Court Disposition

Leave to apply for judicial review refused; application dismissed.

Orders

  • Leave to apply for Judicial Review be refused.
  • Application dismissed.