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

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

The application for leave was dismissed and extension of time refused because the application was out of time without satisfactory explanation and had no real prospect of success: the Board properly assessed risk, found the claimant's evidence disclosed only a private debt dispute with low intensity harm, state...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2020] HKCFI 2696
Parties
Applicant: Dao Thi Nhung; 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
4 November 2020
Case Number
HCAL1116/2018
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review
Outcome
Extension of time for the application for leave to apply for Judicial Review refused; application for leave to apply for Judicial Review dismissed
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, Torture and Cruel Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (cidtp), Internal Relocation, State Protection, Extension of Time, Procedural Fairness, Leave to Apply for Judicial Review
Source Language
en
Immigration Law Constitutional and Administrative Law Human Rights Law Refugee and Non Refoulement Law Judicial Review Procedure Non Refoulement Torture and Cruel Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (cidtp) Internal Relocation +4 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 6 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Dao Thi Nhung

Applicant

Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office

Putative Respondent

Director of Immigration

Putative Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant established a real risk of torture/CIDTP/persecution or other proscribed harm if returned
  2. 2 Whether the Board erred in law, acted irrationally or committed procedural unfairness in rejecting the non-refoulement claim
  3. 3 Whether state protection and internal relocation were viable options

Ratio Decidendi

The application for leave was dismissed and extension of time refused because the application was out of time without satisfactory explanation and had no real prospect of success: the Board properly assessed risk, found the claimant's evidence disclosed only a private debt dispute with low intensity harm, state protection and internal relocation were viable, and there was no legal error, irrationality or procedural unfairness warranting judicial intervention.

Court Disposition

Extension of time for the application for leave to apply for Judicial Review refused; application for leave to apply for Judicial Review dismissed

Orders

  • Extension of time for the application for leave to apply for Judicial Review be refused
  • Application for leave to apply for Judicial Review be dismissed