DANG VAN TUAN v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD [Decision on Leave Application]

DANG VAN TUAN v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD [Decision on Leave Application]

Leave refused because the applicant failed to identify any arguable legal error or procedural unfairness in the Director's and Board's decisions; the Board's adverse credibility findings and conclusions that state protection and internal relocation were available were open to it and defeated any arguable non‑refoulement claim, so there is no prospect of success on judicial review.

Citation
[2020] HKCFI 1485
Parties
Applicant: Dang Van Tuan; Putative Respondent: Torture Claims Appeal Board
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
23 July 2020
Case Number
HCAL516/2018
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review (non‑refoulement/torture Claim) / Leave Application Refused
Outcome
Leave to apply for judicial review refused.
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, Torture Risk, HKBOR Article 3, HKBOR Article 2, Credibility Findings, Internal Relocation, Judicial Review Standard
Source Language
EN
Constitutional Law Administrative Law Immigration Law Human Rights Law Refugee and Asylum Law Non Refoulement Torture Risk HKBOR Article 3 +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 4 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Dang Van Tuan

Applicant

Torture Claims Appeal Board

Putative Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review (non‑refoulement/torture Claim) / Leave Application Refused

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Board and Director erred in law or committed procedural unfairness in rejecting the non‑refoulement/torture claim
  2. 2 Whether the applicant faces a real risk of torture, death or ill‑treatment from private actors on return to Vietnam
  3. 3 Whether state protection or reasonable internal relocation is available

Ratio Decidendi

Leave refused because the applicant failed to identify any arguable legal error or procedural unfairness in the Director's and Board's decisions; the Board's adverse credibility findings and conclusions that state protection and internal relocation were available were open to it and defeated any arguable non‑refoulement claim, so there is no prospect of success on judicial review.

Court Disposition

Leave to apply for judicial review refused.

Orders

  • Leave to apply for judicial review refused.