LE HOAI THU ALIAS LE THI THU v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD [Decision on Leave Application]

LE HOAI THU ALIAS LE THI THU v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD [Decision on Leave Application]

Leave was refused because the applicant failed to identify any reasonably arguable legal error or procedural unfairness; the Director and the Board lawfully and rationally found a low risk to the applicant, availability of state protection and internal relocation, and valid credibility findings, so there was no prospect of success on judicial review.

Citation
[2020] HKCFI 2330
Parties
Applicant: Le Hoai Thu alias Le Thi Thu; Putative Respondent: Torture Claims Appeal Board; Putative Interested Party: Director of Immigration
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
21 September 2020
Case Number
HCAL875/2018
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review / Leave Refused (decision on Documents)
Outcome
Leave to apply for judicial review refused.
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, Torture Risk, Article 3 HKBOR, Article 2 HKBOR, Persecution Under Refugee Convention Article 33, Internal Relocation, Credibility Assessment, Leave for Judicial Review
Source Language
EN
Constitutional Law Administrative Law Immigration Law Human Rights Law Refugee Law Non Refoulement Torture Risk Article 3 HKBOR +5 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 3 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Le Hoai Thu alias Le Thi Thu

Applicant

Torture Claims Appeal Board

Putative Respondent

Director of Immigration

Putative Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review / Leave Refused (decision on Documents)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether there were reasonably arguable legal errors or procedural unfairness in the Director's or Board's decisions
  2. 2 Whether the applicant faced a real risk of torture, ill-treatment or persecution if returned to Vietnam
  3. 3 Whether state protection or internal relocation were available to avoid refoulement

Ratio Decidendi

Leave was refused because the applicant failed to identify any reasonably arguable legal error or procedural unfairness; the Director and the Board lawfully and rationally found a low risk to the applicant, availability of state protection and internal relocation, and valid credibility findings, so there was no prospect of success on judicial review.

Court Disposition

Leave to apply for judicial review refused.

Orders

  • Leave to apply for judicial review refused.