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

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

Leave was refused because the applicants failed to identify any arguable legal ground; the Board conducted fair hearings, its adverse credibility and fact findings were supported by reasons and were not Wednesbury unreasonable, and there was no realistic prospect of success for judicial review.

Citation
[2026] HKCFI 2354
Parties
Applicant (1st): Nguyen Thi Thuong; Applicant (2nd): Nguyen Vy Chi; 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
29 April 2026
Case Number
HCAL1466/2021
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review / Decision Refusing Leave (on Papers)
Outcome
Leave refused; application dismissed
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, Torture/cidtp, Leave to Apply for Judicial Review, Procedural Fairness, Credibility Findings, Internal Relocation
Source Language
EN
Administrative Law Immigration Law Constitutional Law Human Rights Law Non Refoulement Torture/cidtp Leave to Apply for Judicial Review Procedural Fairness +2 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 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Nguyen Thi Thuong

Applicant (1st)

Nguyen Vy Chi

Applicant (2nd)

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 / Decision Refusing Leave (on Papers)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether leave to apply for judicial review should be granted
  2. 2 Whether the Board committed error of law or procedural impropriety in its hearings
  3. 3 Whether the Board's adverse credibility findings were Wednesbury unreasonable

Ratio Decidendi

Leave was refused because the applicants failed to identify any arguable legal ground; the Board conducted fair hearings, its adverse credibility and fact findings were supported by reasons and were not Wednesbury unreasonable, and there was no realistic prospect of success for judicial review.

Court Disposition

Leave refused; application dismissed

Orders

  • Leave for the Applicants to apply for Judicial Review refused
  • Application for leave to apply for judicial review dismissed