PHAM VAN DUC v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD [Decision on Leave Application]

PHAM VAN DUC v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD [Decision on Leave Application]

Leave was refused because the applicant failed to identify any reasonably arguable error of law, irrationality or procedural unfairness in the Director's and Board's decisions; the Board's adverse credibility findings and conclusions that the risk was localized, state protection was available and internal relocation...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2025] HKCFI 4917
Parties
Applicant: Pham Van Duc; Putative Respondent: Torture Claims Appeal Board; Putative Interested Party: Director of Immigration
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
22 October 2025
Case Number
HCAL2458/2020
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review / Leave Application Refused
Outcome
Leave to apply for judicial review refused
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, Torture Risk, Judicial Review, Internal Relocation, Credibility Assessment
Source Language
en
Constitutional and Administrative Law Immigration Law Human Rights Law Non Refoulement Torture Risk Judicial Review Internal Relocation Credibility Assessment

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 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Pham Van Duc

Applicant

Torture Claims Appeal Board

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 applicant demonstrated any arguable error of law, irrationality or procedural unfairness in the Board's decision
  2. 2 Whether private violence by a creditor engages non-refoulement protections including torture or BOR Articles 2 and 3
  3. 3 Whether state protection and internal relocation in Vietnam make non-refoulement protection unnecessary

Ratio Decidendi

Leave was refused because the applicant failed to identify any reasonably arguable error of law, irrationality or procedural unfairness in the Director's and Board's decisions; the Board's adverse credibility findings and conclusions that the risk was localized, state protection was available and internal relocation reasonable were open to them and did not warrant judicial intervention.

Court Disposition

Leave to apply for judicial review refused

Orders

  • Leave to apply for judicial review refused.