LE CAO SU v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD [Decision on Leave Application]

LE CAO SU v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD [Decision on Leave Application]

The court refused the applicant's request to withdraw and proceeded to scrutinise the Board's decision; having applied anxious scrutiny it found no error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality, that the applicant's grounds were general without requisite particulars, and that the applicant's own statement...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2025] HKCFI 4923
Parties
Applicant: Le Cao Su; Putative Respondent: Torture Claims Appeal Board; Putative Interested Party: Director of Immigration
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
15 October 2025
Case Number
HCAL862/2022
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review / Decision on Leave Application (notification) Leave Dismissed
Outcome
Application to withdraw refused; Leave to apply for judicial review dismissed.
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, Unified Screening Mechanism, Judicial Review, Withdrawal of Application, Internal Relocation, Credibility Findings
Source Language
en
Constitutional and Administrative Law Immigration Human Rights Non Refoulement Unified Screening Mechanism Judicial Review Withdrawal of Application Internal Relocation +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 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Le Cao Su

Applicant

Torture Claims Appeal Board

Putative Respondent

Director of Immigration

Putative Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review / Decision on Leave Application (notification) Leave Dismissed

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Board's decision contained errors of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality
  2. 2 Whether the applicant's general assertions without particulars suffice for leave
  3. 3 Whether the applicant's attempt to withdraw should be accepted

Ratio Decidendi

The court refused the applicant's request to withdraw and proceeded to scrutinise the Board's decision; having applied anxious scrutiny it found no error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality, that the applicant's grounds were general without requisite particulars, and that the applicant's own statement that it was safe to return made the claim otiose; therefore leave to apply for judicial review was dismissed.

Court Disposition

Application to withdraw refused; Leave to apply for judicial review dismissed.

Orders

  • Amend putative respondent name to Torture Claims Appeal Board and add Director of Immigration as putative interested party.
  • Application to withdraw the leave application refused.