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

The applicant failed to show a realistic prospect of success because his grounds were bare assertions without supporting evidence and did not demonstrate legal error, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the Board's findings; accordingly leave to apply for judicial review was refused.

Source-derived case information.

Citation: [2026] HKCFI 132
Parties: Applicant: Pham Van Hieu; 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: 7 January 2026
Case Number: HCAL1174/2025
Procedural Posture: Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review / Leave Application (decision on Leave)
Outcome: Leave to apply for judicial review dismissed
Legal Topics: Non Refoulement, Torture Risk (immigration Ordinance Part Viic), Right to Life (hkbor Article 2), Article 3 CIDTP (hkbor), Refugee Convention Article 33, Judicial Review Leave Threshold, Procedural Fairness, Country of Origin Information (coi)
Source Language: en

Constitutional Law Administrative Law Immigration Law Human Rights Law Refugee Law Procedural Law Non Refoulement Torture Risk (immigration Ordinance Part Viic) +6 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 4 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1

Parties

Pham Van Hieu

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 (decision on Leave)

Legal Issues

1 Whether the Board erred in law or acted irrationally in dismissing the non-refoulement/torture claim
2 Whether the Board failed to consider the applicant's right to life and his personal circumstances
3 Whether the Board placed undue reliance on country of origin information without proper evaluation of individual evidence

Ratio Decidendi

Court Disposition

Leave to apply for judicial review dismissed

Orders

Leave to apply for judicial review dismissed.

About this LexChat collection

Publisher and coverage

LexChat is published by Esheria. Coverage reflects the case law currently mapped from identified source collections; it may be incomplete, delayed, or later corrected. The official source controls where it differs from this research page.

AI and research method

Source-derived facts are shown separately from AI-generated material. If an AI summary is available, it is explicitly labelled and remains a non-authoritative research aid.

Corrections and reporting

Report a source mismatch, factual issue, personal-data concern, or licensing question to support@esheria.co.ke. Include this page's URL and the supporting official source so the record can be reviewed, corrected, restricted, or withdrawn.

Legal-information disclaimer

LexChat provides legal information and research tools, not legal advice. Verify currency, status, citations, and jurisdiction with authoritative sources and a qualified professional where appropriate.