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

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

Leave refused because the applicant failed to identify any arguable ground of judicial review; the Board's factual findings (no evidence of the loan, no persuasive risk, availability of state protection and internal relocation) were within the Board's province and not legally flawed, thus the applicant had no...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2026] HKCFI 1359
Parties
Applicant: Pham Van Long; 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
17 March 2026
Case Number
HCAL1502/2021
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, Right to Life, Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, Internal Relocation, State Protection, Judicial Review, Leave to Apply for Judicial Review
Source Language
en
Immigration Constitutional and Administrative Law Human Rights Refugee Law Non Refoulement Torture Right to Life Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment +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 4 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Pham Van Long

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's decision contained errors of law or procedural unfairness warranting judicial review
  2. 2 Whether the applicant faced a real risk of torture if refouled
  3. 3 Whether state protection in Vietnam was available to the applicant

Ratio Decidendi

Leave refused because the applicant failed to identify any arguable ground of judicial review; the Board's factual findings (no evidence of the loan, no persuasive risk, availability of state protection and internal relocation) were within the Board's province and not legally flawed, thus the applicant had no realistic prospect of success.

Court Disposition

Leave to apply for judicial review refused

Orders

  • Leave to apply for judicial review refused
  • Application dismissed