PHAM LUONG PHO v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE [Decision on Leave Application]

PHAM LUONG PHO v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE [Decision on Leave Application]

Leave was refused because the Board's findings—that past ill-treatment was low intensity and unlikely to indicate future risk, that state protection was available, that internal relocation was viable, and that the applicant's account lacked reliability and severity—contained no error of law, procedural unfairness or...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2023] HKCFI 2616
Parties
Applicant: Pham Luong Pho; 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
31 October 2023
Case Number
HCAL1197/2019
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, Torture and CIDTP, Judicial Review, Internal Relocation, State Protection, Procedural Fairness, Wednesbury Unreasonableness
Source Language
en
Constitutional Law Administrative Law Immigration Law Human Rights Law Asylum Law Non Refoulement Torture and CIDTP Judicial Review +4 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 5 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Pham Luong Pho

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 erred in law or committed procedural unfairness in rejecting the applicant's non-refoulement/torture claim
  2. 2 Whether past ill-treatment indicated a real risk of future harm on return
  3. 3 Whether state protection was available in the applicant's country of origin

Ratio Decidendi

Leave was refused because the Board's findings—that past ill-treatment was low intensity and unlikely to indicate future risk, that state protection was available, that internal relocation was viable, and that the applicant's account lacked reliability and severity—contained no error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality; the applicant had no realistic prospect of success on judicial review.

Court Disposition

Leave to apply for judicial review refused; application dismissed

Orders

  • Leave to apply for judicial review refused
  • Application dismissed