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

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

The Board correctly applied the law: on the uncontested factual findings in the Director's unappealed Notice the applicants' case concerned a private dispute without state involvement or acquiescence, there was no real risk of state-inflicted deprivation of life, state protection was available, the applicants submitted no fresh evidence when invited, and the Board's decision was not legally flawed or Wednesbury unreasonable, therefore leave to apply for judicial review is refused.

Citation
[2023] HKCFI 2610
Parties
1st Applicant: Nguyen Thi Hoa; 2nd Applicant: Do Tuan Anh; 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
10 October 2023
Case Number
HCAL1023/2019
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review (non Refoulement / BOR 2) / Leave Application Refused (decision on Papers With Oral Submissions by 2nd Applicant)
Outcome
Leave to apply for judicial review refused
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, BOR 2 (right to Life), Leave to Apply for Judicial Review, Procedural Fairness, Wednesbury Unreasonableness, State Protection, Internal Relocation
Source Language
EN
Constitutional Law Administrative Law Immigration Law Human Rights Law Refoulement/asylum Law Non Refoulement BOR 2 (right to Life) Leave to Apply for Judicial Review +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 8 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Nguyen Thi Hoa

1st Applicant

Do Tuan Anh

2nd 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 (non Refoulement / BOR 2) / Leave Application Refused (decision on Papers With Oral Submissions by 2nd Applicant)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether claimed harm engages BOR 2 (risk of arbitrary deprivation of life by state)
  2. 2 Whether Board erred in law, acted procedurally unfairly, or reached an irrational/Wednesbury unreasonable decision
  3. 3 Whether adequate state protection was available or the alleged harm was a private dispute

Ratio Decidendi

The Board correctly applied the law: on the uncontested factual findings in the Director's unappealed Notice the applicants' case concerned a private dispute without state involvement or acquiescence, there was no real risk of state-inflicted deprivation of life, state protection was available, the applicants submitted no fresh evidence when invited, and the Board's decision was not legally flawed or Wednesbury unreasonable, therefore leave to apply for judicial review is refused.

Court Disposition

Leave to apply for judicial review refused

Orders

  • Application for leave to apply for judicial review dismissed/refused