LE ANH HONG v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE [Decision on Leave Application]

LE ANH HONG 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 show any reasonable prospect of success: the Board's factual findings that the claim was unsubstantiated, that state protection and internal relocation were available, and that the claimed harm was speculative and did not meet the minimum...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2020] HKCFI 1548
Parties
Applicant: Le Anh Hong; 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
15 July 2020
Case Number
HCAL1888/2018
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review (leave Application) / Leave Application Refused by Deputy High Court Judge
Outcome
Leave to apply for judicial review refused; application dismissed.
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, Torture/cidtp Risk, Right to Life (bor Article 2), BOR Article 3, State Protection, Internal Relocation, Judicial Review Standard of Review, Leave to Apply for Judicial Review
Source Language
en
Administrative Law Constitutional Law Immigration Law Human Rights Law Refugee Law Non Refoulement Torture/cidtp Risk Right to Life (bor Article 2) +5 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 4 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Le Anh Hong

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 Application Refused by Deputy High Court Judge

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Board erred in law or procedure in rejecting the non-refoulement/torture claim
  2. 2 Whether the applicant faces a real risk of torture, CIDTP or death if returned
  3. 3 Whether effective state protection or internal relocation is available

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the applicant failed to show any reasonable prospect of success: the Board's factual findings that the claim was unsubstantiated, that state protection and internal relocation were available, and that the claimed harm was speculative and did not meet the minimum severity were within the Board's evaluative province and not tainted by error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality.

Court Disposition

Leave to apply for judicial review refused; application dismissed.

Orders

  • Leave to apply for judicial review refused
  • Application dismissed