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

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

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the Applicant failed to demonstrate any error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the Board's Decision; the Director's decision was not reviewable as it was superseded by the Board's appeal; the Board applied correct legal principles and its...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2026] HKCFI 2654
Parties
Applicant: Duong Thi Thoa; 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
14 May 2026
Case Number
HCAL1465/2022
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review (leave Application) / Leave Stage — Application Dismissed After Consideration of Documents and Oral Attendance
Outcome
Leave to apply for judicial review dismissed; Form 86 amended to name Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office as the Putative Respondent and Director of Immigration as the Putative Interested Party.
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, Wednesbury Unreasonableness, Right to Life (hkboro Article 2), Procedural Fairness, Leave to Apply for Judicial Review
Source Language
en
Constitutional Law Administrative Law Immigration Law Human Rights Law Non Refoulement Wednesbury Unreasonableness Right to Life (hkboro Article 2) Procedural Fairness +1 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 5 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Duong Thi Thoa

Applicant

Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office

Putative Respondent

Director of Immigration

Putative Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review (leave Application) / Leave Stage — Application Dismissed After Consideration of Documents and Oral Attendance

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether leave to apply for judicial review should be granted in respect of the Board's Decision
  2. 2 Whether the Director's earlier decision is reviewable after appeal to the Board
  3. 3 Whether the Board's Decision was irrational, Wednesbury unreasonable or procedurally unfair

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the Applicant failed to demonstrate any error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the Board's Decision; the Director's decision was not reviewable as it was superseded by the Board's appeal; the Board applied correct legal principles and its factual findings that state protection was available were supported by the evidence, making the challenge not reasonably arguable.

Court Disposition

Leave to apply for judicial review dismissed; Form 86 amended to name Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office as the Putative Respondent and Director of Immigration as the Putative Interested Party.

Orders

  • Form 86 amended to name the Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office as the only Putative Respondent and the Director of Immigration as the Putative Interested Party
  • Application for leave to apply for judicial review dismissed