NGUYEN THI DAN v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD/ NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE [Decision on Leave Application]

NGUYEN THI DAN v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD/ NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE [Decision on Leave Application]

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the applicant failed to demonstrate any reasonable prospect of success or any error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the Board's Decision; factual and risk assessments of this nature fall within the Board's province and did not attract judicial intervention.

Citation
[2020] HKCFI 1543
Parties
Applicant: Nguyen Thi Dan; 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
14 July 2020
Case Number
HCAL1839/2018
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review / Leave Application Refused
Outcome
Leave to apply for judicial review refused; application dismissed.
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, Risk of Torture/cidtp, Internal Relocation, Procedural Fairness, Judicial Review Leave
Source Language
EN
Immigration Law Human Rights Administrative Law Constitutional Law Non Refoulement Risk of Torture/cidtp Internal Relocation Procedural Fairness +1 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 4 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Nguyen Thi Dan

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 Application Refused

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Board'sDecision contained errors of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality
  2. 2 Whether the applicant faces a real risk of torture, CIDTP or violation of the right to life if returned to Vietnam
  3. 3 Whether state protection is available to the applicant

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the applicant failed to demonstrate any reasonable prospect of success or any error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the Board's Decision; factual and risk assessments of this nature fall within the Board's province and did not attract judicial intervention.

Court Disposition

Leave to apply for judicial review refused; application dismissed.

Orders

  • Leave to apply for judicial review refused
  • Application dismissed