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

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

Leave was refused because the Board's decision was reasonable and rational: the applicant's factual assertions were accepted but did not establish a real and substantial risk of serious harm; police protection and internal relocation were available; the alleged mistreatment did not meet the legal threshold for torture/CIDTP; no public law error, procedural unfairness or irrationality was identified and the new criminal liability complaint was unsubstantiated.

Citation
[2021] HKCFI 199
Parties
Applicant: Le Thi Ninh; 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
28 January 2021
Case Number
HCAL1120/2018
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Leave to Apply for Judicial Review (refused)
Outcome
Leave to apply for judicial review refused.
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, Leave to Apply for Judicial Review, State Protection, Internal Relocation, Procedural Fairness, Assessment of Evidence, Torture and CIDTP
Source Language
EN
Immigration Law Administrative Law Constitutional Law Human Rights Law Non Refoulement Leave to Apply for Judicial Review State Protection Internal Relocation +3 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 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Le Thi Ninh

Applicant

Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office

Putative Respondent

Director of Immigration

Putative Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Leave to Apply for Judicial Review (refused)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Board's decision rejecting the non-refoulement claim was legally flawed
  2. 2 Whether the applicant established a real risk of torture, CIDTP or other serious harm by her creditor
  3. 3 Whether state protection and internal relocation were available and viable

Ratio Decidendi

Leave was refused because the Board's decision was reasonable and rational: the applicant's factual assertions were accepted but did not establish a real and substantial risk of serious harm; police protection and internal relocation were available; the alleged mistreatment did not meet the legal threshold for torture/CIDTP; no public law error, procedural unfairness or irrationality was identified and the new criminal liability complaint was unsubstantiated.

Court Disposition

Leave to apply for judicial review refused.

Orders

  • Leave to apply for judicial review refused.