LUU VAN HOA v. IMMIGRATION DEPARTMENT AND ANOTHER [Decision on Leave Application]

LUU VAN HOA v. IMMIGRATION DEPARTMENT AND ANOTHER [Decision on Leave Application]

Leave was refused because no reasonably arguable error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality was identified in the Director's or the Board's decisions; both decision-makers reasonably found the claimed harm was a private, localized dispute with low intensity and frequency and that state protection and internal relocation in Vietnam were available, so the applicant had no prospect of success on judicial review.

Citation
[2020] HKCFI 1481
Parties
Applicant: Luu Van Hoa; 1st Putative Respondent: Immigration Department; 2nd Putative Respondent: Torture Claims Appeal Board
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
28 July 2020
Case Number
HCAL498/2018
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review (non Refoulement) / Leave Application Refused
Outcome
Leave to apply for judicial review refused.
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, Torture and Article 3 HKBOR, Internal Relocation, Risk Assessment, Procedural Fairness, Leave to Apply for Judicial Review
Source Language
EN
Constitutional Law Administrative Law Immigration Law Human Rights Law Asylum Law Non Refoulement Torture and Article 3 HKBOR 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 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Luu Van Hoa

Applicant

Immigration Department

1st Putative Respondent

Torture Claims Appeal Board

2nd Putative Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review (non Refoulement) / Leave Application Refused

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Director and the Torture Claims Appeal Board made errors of law or procedural unfairness in rejecting the non-refoulement claim
  2. 2 Whether the applicant faces a real and foreseeable risk of torture or ill-treatment by private actors if returned to Vietnam
  3. 3 Whether state protection/internal relocation are available to avoid refoulement

Ratio Decidendi

Leave was refused because no reasonably arguable error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality was identified in the Director's or the Board's decisions; both decision-makers reasonably found the claimed harm was a private, localized dispute with low intensity and frequency and that state protection and internal relocation in Vietnam were available, so the applicant had no prospect of success on judicial review.

Court Disposition

Leave to apply for judicial review refused.

Orders

  • Leave to apply for judicial review refused