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

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

Applicant failed to demonstrate any arguable public law error, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the Board's fact-finding and credibility conclusions; therefore there was no prospect of success and leave to apply for judicial review was refused.

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2021] HKCFI 203
Parties
Applicant: Pham Van Tuyen; 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
28 January 2021
Case Number
HCAL1176/2018
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review / Leave Refused (considered on the Papers)
Outcome
Leave to apply for judicial review refused
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, Torture, Asylum, Judicial Review Leave, State Protection, Credibility Assessment
Source Language
en
Constitutional and Administrative Law Immigration Law Human Rights Non Refoulement Torture Asylum Judicial Review Leave State Protection +1 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 3 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Pham Van Tuyen

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 Refused (considered on the Papers)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Board erred in law or committed procedural unfairness in rejecting the non-refoulement claim
  2. 2 Whether the applicant faces a real risk of proscribed harm if refouled
  3. 3 Appropriate standard of judicial review for non-refoulement decisions

Ratio Decidendi

Applicant failed to demonstrate any arguable public law error, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the Board's fact-finding and credibility conclusions; therefore there was no prospect of success and leave to apply for judicial review was refused.

Court Disposition

Leave to apply for judicial review refused

Orders

  • Leave to apply for judicial review is refused.
  • Application considered on the papers as no oral hearing was requested.