MAC VAN THU v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD [Decision on Leave Application]

MAC VAN THU v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD [Decision on Leave Application]

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the applicant failed to establish a reasonably arguable legal claim with realistic prospects of success; the Board's decision contained no error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality, correctly treated the dispute as a private loan matter not amounting...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2025] HKCFI 5390
Parties
Applicant: Mac Van Thu; Putative Respondent: Torture Claims Appeal Board; Putative Interested Party: Director of Immigration
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
11 November 2025
Case Number
HCAL2172/2020
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review / Leave Application (consideration on Documents)
Outcome
Leave to apply for judicial review dismissed
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, Torture, Procedural Fairness, Judicial Review, Wednesbury Unreasonableness
Source Language
en
Constitutional and Administrative Law Immigration Human Rights Non Refoulement Torture Procedural Fairness Judicial Review Wednesbury Unreasonableness

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 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mac Van Thu

Applicant

Torture Claims Appeal Board

Putative Respondent

Director of Immigration

Putative Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review / Leave Application (consideration on Documents)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant identified arguable grounds for judicial review
  2. 2 Whether the Board committed errors of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality in rejecting the non-refoulement claim
  3. 3 Whether threats from a private creditor amount to torture under section 37U of the Immigration Ordinance

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the applicant failed to establish a reasonably arguable legal claim with realistic prospects of success; the Board's decision contained no error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality, correctly treated the dispute as a private loan matter not amounting to torture, and properly assessed state protection and internal relocation.

Court Disposition

Leave to apply for judicial review dismissed

Orders

  • Court order amending putative respondent to 'Torture Claims Appeal Board' and putative interested party to 'Director of Immigration'
  • The applicant's application for leave to apply for judicial review is dismissed