PHAM THI HAU v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD [Decision on Leave Application]

PHAM THI HAU v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD [Decision on Leave Application]

Leave was refused because the applicant failed to identify any reasonably arguable ground of legal error, irrationality or procedural unfairness in the Director's and the Board's decisions; their assessment that the risk was low and that state protection and internal relocation were available was a matter for...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2022] HKCFI 1144
Parties
Applicant: Pham Thi Hau; Putative Respondent: Torture Claims Appeal Board; Putative Interested Party: Director of Immigration
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
21 April 2022
Case Number
HCAL417/2019
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review (leave Application) / Leave Application Refused
Outcome
Leave to apply for judicial review refused.
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, Torture Risk, Internal Relocation, Judicial Review Leave, Procedural Fairness
Source Language
en
Immigration Law Constitutional Law Administrative Law Non Refoulement Torture Risk Internal Relocation Judicial Review Leave Procedural Fairness

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 3 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Pham Thi Hau

Applicant

Torture Claims Appeal Board

Putative Respondent

Director of Immigration

Putative Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review (leave Application) / Leave Application Refused

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Director and the Board erred in law or acted irrationally in rejecting the applicant's non-refoulement claim
  2. 2 Whether the applicant faced a real risk of torture, death or persecution on return to Vietnam (Torture/BOR 2/BOR 3/Persecution risks)
  3. 3 Whether state protection and internal relocation were reasonable and available

Ratio Decidendi

Leave was refused because the applicant failed to identify any reasonably arguable ground of legal error, irrationality or procedural unfairness in the Director's and the Board's decisions; their assessment that the risk was low and that state protection and internal relocation were available was a matter for primary decision-makers and not for the court on judicial review.

Court Disposition

Leave to apply for judicial review refused.

Orders

  • Leave to apply for judicial review refused.