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

Source-derived case information.

Citation: [2024] HKCFI 1365
Parties: Applicant: Le Vu Phong; 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 May 2024
Case Number: HCAL1136/2018
Procedural Posture: Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review (non Refoulement/usm) / Leave Application Decided (refused)
Outcome: Leave to amend Form 86 granted; extension of time to apply for leave refused; leave to apply for judicial review refused.
Legal Topics: Non Refoulement, Torture, Asylum, Internal Relocation, Procedural Fairness, Delay/limitation, Wednesbury Unreasonableness
Source Language: en

Administrative Law Immigration Law Human Rights Law Constitutional Law Non Refoulement Torture Asylum Internal Relocation +3 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 5

Parties

Le Vu Phong

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 (non Refoulement/usm) / Leave Application Decided (refused)

Legal Issues

1 Whether leave to apply for judicial review should be granted despite delay/out of time filing
2 Whether Board erred in law or was irrational in assessing risk from non-state actor (moneylender)
3 Whether state acquiescence or state protection was properly considered

Ratio Decidendi

Leave was refused because the application was filed many months out of time without a reasonable explanation and the proposed judicial review lacked realistic prospects of success: the Board lawfully and rationally applied the correct legal standards, gave adequate reasons, correctly evaluated COI, concluded harm did not meet thresholds for protection, and found state protection and internal relocation available; no arguable error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality was shown.

Court Disposition

Leave to amend Form 86 granted; extension of time to apply for leave refused; leave to apply for judicial review refused.

Orders

Leave to amend the notice of application for leave to apply for Judicial Review (Form 86) is granted
Extension of time to apply for leave for Judicial Review is refused

About this LexChat collection

Publisher and coverage

LexChat is published by Esheria. Coverage reflects the case law currently mapped from identified source collections; it may be incomplete, delayed, or later corrected. The official source controls where it differs from this research page.

AI and research method

Source-derived facts are shown separately from AI-generated material. If an AI summary is available, it is explicitly labelled and remains a non-authoritative research aid.

Corrections and reporting

Report a source mismatch, factual issue, personal-data concern, or licensing question to support@esheria.co.ke. Include this page's URL and the supporting official source so the record can be reviewed, corrected, restricted, or withdrawn.

Legal-information disclaimer

LexChat provides legal information and research tools, not legal advice. Verify currency, status, citations, and jurisdiction with authoritative sources and a qualified professional where appropriate.