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

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

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the Board had fairly heard and properly considered the applicant's case, applied the correct law and relevant instruments, there was no demonstrable error of law or procedural unfairness, and the applicant failed to show a reasonable prospect of success to...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2019] HKCFI 3078
Parties
Applicant: Ngo Van Thanh; Putative Respondent: Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
20 December 2019
Case Number
HCAL1683/2018
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review / Leave Application (judicial Review) Refusal of Leave
Outcome
Leave to apply for judicial review refused; application dismissed.
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, Torture, CIDTP, Judicial Review, Leave to Apply, Procedural Fairness, Credibility Findings
Source Language
en
Immigration Law Administrative Law Constitutional Law Human Rights Law Non Refoulement Torture CIDTP Judicial Review +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 4 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ngo Van Thanh

Applicant

Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office

Putative Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review / Leave Application (judicial Review) Refusal of Leave

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant should be granted leave to apply for judicial review of the Board's decision
  2. 2 Whether the applicant received a fair screening and hearing before the Immigration Department and the Board
  3. 3 Whether the Board erred in law in finding no risk of torture, CIDTP, violation of right to life or persecution

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the Board had fairly heard and properly considered the applicant's case, applied the correct law and relevant instruments, there was no demonstrable error of law or procedural unfairness, and the applicant failed to show a reasonable prospect of success to justify judicial review.

Court Disposition

Leave to apply for judicial review refused; application dismissed.

Orders

  • Leave to apply for judicial review refused
  • Applicant's application dismissed