TA THANH MAI v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD/NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE [Decision on Leave Application]

TA THANH MAI v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD/NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE [Decision on Leave Application]

Leave was refused because the applicant failed to identify any error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the Board's Decision; the Board's findings that risks were low, state protection and internal relocation available, and no evidence of state involvement were not challengeable and therefore no reasonable prospect of success existed for judicial review.

Citation
[2020] HKCFI 1846
Parties
Applicant: Ta Thanh Mai; 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
4 August 2020
Case Number
HCAL1915/2018
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review / Leave Application Refused
Outcome
Leave to apply for judicial review refused; application dismissed.
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, Torture, Right to Life (hkbor Article 2), Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment (hkbor Article 3), Persecution (refugee Convention Article 33), Judicial Review Leave
Source Language
EN
Immigration Law Administrative Law Constitutional Law Human Rights Law Non Refoulement Torture Right to Life (hkbor Article 2) Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment (hkbor Article 3) +2 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 5 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ta Thanh Mai

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 erred in assessing risk of torture/CIDTP
  2. 2 Whether there was a real risk of violation of right to life under BOR Article 2
  3. 3 Whether state protection or internal relocation was available

Ratio Decidendi

Leave was refused because the applicant failed to identify any error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the Board's Decision; the Board's findings that risks were low, state protection and internal relocation available, and no evidence of state involvement were not challengeable and therefore no reasonable prospect of success existed for judicial review.

Court Disposition

Leave to apply for judicial review refused; application dismissed.

Orders

  • Leave to apply for judicial review refused
  • Application dismissed