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

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

Leave was refused because the applicants failed to demonstrate any realistic prospect of success: the Board's factual findings (localized threats, private dispute, absence of state involvement, adequacy of state protection and viability of internal relocation) were not Wednesbury unreasonable, and there were no legal errors or procedural unfairness warranting judicial review.

Citation
[2023] HKCFI 629
Parties
Applicant (1st): Nguyen Thi Hien; Applicant (2nd): Tran Le Tuyen; 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
21 March 2023
Case Number
HCAL768/2019
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review (leave Application) / Leave Application (considered on Paper); Leave Refused
Outcome
Leave to apply for judicial review refused; joint application dismissed
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, Risk of Torture, Article 2 HKBOR (right to Life), Article 3 HKBOR (cidtp), Persecution Under Refugee Convention Article 33, State Protection, Internal Relocation, Judicial Review Leave
Source Language
EN
Immigration Constitutional and Administrative Law Human Rights Refoulement Law Non Refoulement Risk of Torture Article 2 HKBOR (right to Life) Article 3 HKBOR (cidtp) +4 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 7 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Nguyen Thi Hien

Applicant (1st)

Tran Le Tuyen

Applicant (2nd)

Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office

Putative Respondent

Director of Immigration

Putative Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review (leave Application) / Leave Application (considered on Paper); Leave Refused

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether applicants face a real risk of torture or CIDTP if returned
  2. 2 Whether applicants face a violation of right to life under Article 2 HKBOR
  3. 3 Whether applicants face persecution under Article 33 of the Refugee Convention

Ratio Decidendi

Leave was refused because the applicants failed to demonstrate any realistic prospect of success: the Board's factual findings (localized threats, private dispute, absence of state involvement, adequacy of state protection and viability of internal relocation) were not Wednesbury unreasonable, and there were no legal errors or procedural unfairness warranting judicial review.

Court Disposition

Leave to apply for judicial review refused; joint application dismissed

Orders

  • Leave to apply for judicial review refused
  • Joint application dismissed