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

LE VAN DO 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 demonstrate any error of law, procedural unfairness or Wednesbury unreasonableness in the Board's decision; the Board's conclusions that the risk was low and that state protection and internal relocation were available meant there was no...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2023] HKCFI 329
Parties
Applicant: Le Van Do; 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
21 February 2023
Case Number
HCAL85/2019
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review / Leave Application (refused)
Outcome
Leave to apply for judicial review refused; application dismissed.
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, Torture and CIDTP Risk, Refugee Convention Article 33 (persecution), Hong Kong Bill of Rights Articles 2 and 3, State Protection, Internal Relocation, Judicial Review Leave, Wednesbury Unreasonableness
Source Language
en
Immigration Law Administrative Law Constitutional Law Human Rights Law Non Refoulement Torture and CIDTP Risk Refugee Convention Article 33 (persecution) Hong Kong Bill of Rights Articles 2 and 3 +4 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 6 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Le Van Do

Applicant

Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office

Putative Respondent

Director of Immigration

Putative Interested Party

Procedural Posture

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

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Board erred in law or acted with procedural unfairness in dismissing the applicant's non-refoulement/torture claim
  2. 2 Whether the facts established a real risk of torture, CIDTP or violation of the right to life on return (HKBOR Art 2 and 3)
  3. 3 Whether state protection and internal relocation were available and viable

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the applicant failed to demonstrate any error of law, procedural unfairness or Wednesbury unreasonableness in the Board's decision; the Board's conclusions that the risk was low and that state protection and internal relocation were available meant there was no realistic prospect of success.

Court Disposition

Leave to apply for judicial review refused; application dismissed.

Orders

  • Leave to apply for judicial review refused
  • Application dismissed