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

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

Leave was refused because the applicant had no realistic prospect of success: the Board's factual findings that there was no evidence of severe pain reaching the minimum threshold for torture/CIDTP, that the applicant was a fugitive, that state protection and fair trial were available, and that the alleged offences did not attract death penalty were rational and free of error of law or procedural unfairness.

Citation
[2023] HKCFI 2631
Parties
Applicant: Pham Van Duy; 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
HCAL1184/2019
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review (immigration/non Refoulement) / Leave Application Refused
Outcome
Leave to apply for judicial review refused; application dismissed.
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, Torture Risk, State Protection, Judicial Review Leave, Procedure and Fact Finding, Fair Trial
Source Language
EN
Immigration Law Administrative Law Constitutional Law Human Rights Law Refugee Law Non Refoulement Torture Risk State Protection +3 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

Pham Van Duy

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 (immigration/non Refoulement) / Leave Application Refused

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Board erred in law or procedure in dismissing the non-refoulement and torture claims
  2. 2 Whether the applicant faces a real risk of torture, death or CIDTP if returned to Vietnam
  3. 3 Whether effective state protection and internal relocation are available

Ratio Decidendi

Leave was refused because the applicant had no realistic prospect of success: the Board's factual findings that there was no evidence of severe pain reaching the minimum threshold for torture/CIDTP, that the applicant was a fugitive, that state protection and fair trial were available, and that the alleged offences did not attract death penalty were rational and free of error of law or procedural unfairness.

Court Disposition

Leave to apply for judicial review refused; application dismissed.

Orders

  • Leave to apply for judicial review refused
  • Application dismissed