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

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

Leave was refused because the Board's findings that the applicant's fear was not credible, that there were no substantial grounds for real risk of torture/CIDTP/persecution, and that internal relocation/state protection were viable did not involve any error of law, irrationality or procedural unfairness; no...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2021] HKCFI 644
Parties
Applicant: Le Thi Huong; 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
23 March 2021
Case Number
HCAL1129/2018
Procedural Posture
Leave to Apply for Judicial Review (non Refoulement) / Decision on Leave (considered on the Papers)
Outcome
Leave to apply for judicial review refused.
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, Torture / CIDTP, Leave to Apply for Judicial Review, Internal Relocation, State Protection, Procedural Fairness, Irrationality
Source Language
en
Constitutional and Administrative Law Immigration and Asylum Non Refoulement Torture / CIDTP Leave to Apply for Judicial Review Internal Relocation State Protection 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 3 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Le Thi Huong

Applicant

Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office

Putative Respondent

Director of Immigration

Putative Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Leave to Apply for Judicial Review (non Refoulement) / Decision on Leave (considered on the Papers)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Board erred in law or acted irrationally in rejecting the non-refoulement claim
  2. 2 Whether there was procedural unfairness in the Board's hearing
  3. 3 Whether the applicant faced a real risk of torture, CIDTP or persecution on return

Ratio Decidendi

Leave was refused because the Board's findings that the applicant's fear was not credible, that there were no substantial grounds for real risk of torture/CIDTP/persecution, and that internal relocation/state protection were viable did not involve any error of law, irrationality or procedural unfairness; no reasonably arguable public law ground for judicial review existed.

Court Disposition

Leave to apply for judicial review refused.

Orders

  • Leave to apply for judicial review is refused.
  • Application considered on the papers; no oral hearing requested.