DINH VIET DAT v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD [Decision on Leave Application]

DINH VIET DAT v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD [Decision on Leave Application]

Leave was dismissed because the applicant's grounds were bare and not reasonably arguable; the Board and Director made lawful, rational findings—notably adverse credibility findings and a COI‑based assessment that the risk was low, that the harm was private and localized, and that state protection and internal relocation were available—and no legal error or procedural unfairness was demonstrated; the applicant also confirmed it was safe to return, leaving no prospect of success.

Citation
[2024] HKCFI 2138
Parties
Applicant: Dinh Viet Dat; Putative Respondent: Torture Claims Appeal Board; Putative Interested Party: Director of Immigration
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
22 August 2024
Case Number
HCAL631/2024
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review (non‑refoulement) / Leave Decision (dismissed)
Outcome
Application for leave to apply for judicial review dismissed.
Legal Topics
Non‑refoulement, Torture/article 3 Risk, Right to Life/article 2, Credibility Findings, Internal Relocation, Procedural Fairness, Wednesbury Unreasonableness, Judicial Review Leave Stage
Source Language
EN
Constitutional Law Administrative Law Immigration Law Human Rights Law Non‑refoulement Torture/article 3 Risk Right to Life/article 2 Credibility Findings +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 5 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Dinh Viet Dat

Applicant

Torture Claims Appeal Board

Putative Respondent

Director of Immigration

Putative Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review (non‑refoulement) / Leave Decision (dismissed)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Board's and Director's decisions were Wednesbury unreasonable
  2. 2 Whether there was procedural unfairness by the Adjudicator or Board
  3. 3 Whether the Board failed to give proper weight to state acquiescence or relevant COI

Ratio Decidendi

Leave was dismissed because the applicant's grounds were bare and not reasonably arguable; the Board and Director made lawful, rational findings—notably adverse credibility findings and a COI‑based assessment that the risk was low, that the harm was private and localized, and that state protection and internal relocation were available—and no legal error or procedural unfairness was demonstrated; the applicant also confirmed it was safe to return, leaving no prospect of success.

Court Disposition

Application for leave to apply for judicial review dismissed.

Orders

  • The application for leave to apply for judicial review be dismissed.