PHUNG THI TUOI v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE AND ANOTHER [Decision on Leave Application]

PHUNG THI TUOI v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE AND ANOTHER [Decision on Leave Application]

Leave to apply for judicial review refused because the Applicant failed to identify any arguable legal ground; the Board correctly applied the law, made credibility and factual findings within its exclusive province, and the Decision was not legally erroneous, procedurally unfair or Wednesbury unreasonable.

Citation
[2022] HKCFI 2060
Parties
Applicant: Phung Thi Tuoi; 1st Putative Respondent: Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-Refoulement Claims Petition Office; 2nd Putative Respondent: Director of Immigration
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
8 July 2022
Case Number
HCAL1028/2019
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review / Leave Refused
Outcome
Leave to apply for judicial review refused.
Legal Topics
Unified Screening Mechanism, Non Refoulement, Wednesbury Unreasonableness, State Protection, Credibility Findings
Source Language
EN
Constitutional and Administrative Law Immigration Human Rights Judicial Review Unified Screening Mechanism Non Refoulement Wednesbury Unreasonableness State Protection +1 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 3 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Phung Thi Tuoi

Applicant

Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-Refoulement Claims Petition Office

1st Putative Respondent

Director of Immigration

2nd Putative Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review / Leave Refused

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Board's decision involved error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality
  2. 2 Whether the Applicant's credibility findings were open to challenge on judicial review
  3. 3 Whether state protection in Vietnam was available to the Applicant

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to apply for judicial review refused because the Applicant failed to identify any arguable legal ground; the Board correctly applied the law, made credibility and factual findings within its exclusive province, and the Decision was not legally erroneous, procedurally unfair or Wednesbury unreasonable.

Court Disposition

Leave to apply for judicial review refused.

Orders

  • Leave to apply for judicial review refused.