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

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

Leave was refused because the Board's decision disclosed no arguable error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality: the applicant's unexplained absence was his responsibility and non-prejudicial, the alleged past violence did not meet the required severity, and reasonable state protection and internal relocation were available so there was no real risk of proscribed harm.

Citation
[2021] HKCFI 718
Parties
Applicant: Dinh Van Hoc; 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
25 March 2021
Case Number
HCAL1447/2018
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review (non Refoulement) / Leave Application Refused
Outcome
Leave to apply for judicial review refused.
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, Torture and Ill Treatment, Internal Relocation, State Protection, Procedural Fairness, Leave to Apply for Judicial Review, Standard of Review
Source Language
EN
Constitutional Law Administrative Law Immigration Law Human Rights Non Refoulement Torture and Ill Treatment Internal Relocation State Protection +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 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Dinh Van Hoc

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 (non Refoulement) / Leave Application Refused

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Board lawfully proceeded in the applicant's absence and whether notice reached him
  2. 2 Whether failure to conduct a medical examination amounted to procedural unfairness
  3. 3 Whether the past ill-treatment met the severity threshold for protection

Ratio Decidendi

Leave was refused because the Board's decision disclosed no arguable error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality: the applicant's unexplained absence was his responsibility and non-prejudicial, the alleged past violence did not meet the required severity, and reasonable state protection and internal relocation were available so there was no real risk of proscribed harm.

Court Disposition

Leave to apply for judicial review refused.

Orders

  • Leave to apply for Judicial Review be refused.