LUU DINH CONG v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE [Decision on Leave Application]

LUU DINH CONG v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE [Decision on Leave Application]

Leave was refused because the applicant failed to demonstrate any realistic prospect of success: the Board's adverse credibility and fact findings were within its discretion given the lack of objective supporting evidence, the applicant bore the evidential burden, and the Board reasonably concluded that state...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2024] HKCFI 343
Parties
Applicant: Luu Dinh Cong; 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
7 February 2024
Case Number
HCAL1315/2019
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review / Leave Refused
Outcome
Leave to apply for judicial review refused
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, Torture and CIDTP, Refugee Convention Article 33, Judicial Review Leave, State Protection, Internal Relocation
Source Language
en
Immigration Law Administrative Law Human Rights Law Constitutional Law Non Refoulement Torture and CIDTP Refugee Convention Article 33 Judicial Review Leave +2 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 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Luu Dinh Cong

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 Refused

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Board unlawfully disbelieved the applicant without proper consideration of evidence
  2. 2 Whether the Board irrationally or procedurally unfairly relied on COI and cherry-picked material
  3. 3 Whether the Board was obliged to obtain medical evidence or bear burden to prove injuries

Ratio Decidendi

Leave was refused because the applicant failed to demonstrate any realistic prospect of success: the Board's adverse credibility and fact findings were within its discretion given the lack of objective supporting evidence, the applicant bore the evidential burden, and the Board reasonably concluded that state protection and internal relocation were available; no error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality was demonstrated.

Court Disposition

Leave to apply for judicial review refused

Orders

  • Leave to apply for judicial review refused
  • Application dismissed