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

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

Leave was refused because the applicant failed to demonstrate any arguable error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the Board's decision; the Board's adverse credibility findings and conclusions on risk, state protection and internal relocation were within its evaluative province and did not disclose a reasonable prospect of success on judicial review.

Citation
[2021] HKCFI 528
Parties
Applicant: Dinh Thi Dem; 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
8 March 2021
Case Number
HCAL1283/2018
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review / Leave Application (refused)
Outcome
Leave to apply for judicial review refused; application dismissed.
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, Torture and CIDTP, Judicial Review Leave, Credibility Findings, State Protection, Internal Relocation, Wednesbury Unreasonableness
Source Language
EN
Administrative Law Immigration Law Constitutional Law Human Rights Law Non Refoulement Torture and CIDTP Judicial Review Leave Credibility Findings +3 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 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Dinh Thi Dem

Applicant

Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office

Putative Respondent

Director of Immigration

Putative Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review / Leave Application (refused)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Board committed error of law or procedural unfairness in rejecting non-refoulement, torture and related human rights claims
  2. 2 Whether the applicant demonstrated a real risk of torture, death or other serious harm if returned to Vietnam
  3. 3 Whether state protection and internal relocation were viable options

Ratio Decidendi

Leave was refused because the applicant failed to demonstrate any arguable error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the Board's decision; the Board's adverse credibility findings and conclusions on risk, state protection and internal relocation were within its evaluative province and did not disclose a reasonable prospect of success on judicial review.

Court Disposition

Leave to apply for judicial review refused; application dismissed.

Orders

  • Leave to apply for Judicial Review refused
  • Application dismissed