TRAN CONG DANG v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD/ NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE [Decision on Leave Application]

TRAN CONG DANG v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD/ NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE [Decision on Leave Application]

Leave refused because there was no reasonably arguable case: the Board's findings were reasonable on the facts, the alleged threats were of low intensity and did not meet the severity threshold for proscribed harm, state protection and internal relocation were available, and there was no error of law, irrationality or procedural unfairness warranting judicial review.

Citation
[2020] HKCFI 2391
Parties
Applicant: Tran Cong Dang; 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 September 2020
Case Number
HCAL961/2018
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review (non Refoulement) / Leave Application Refused on Papers (consideration Only)
Outcome
Leave to apply for judicial review refused.
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, Torture/cidtp, State Protection, Internal Relocation, Judicial Review, Procedural Fairness, Bias
Source Language
EN
Immigration Constitutional and Administrative Law Human Rights Administrative Law Non Refoulement Torture/cidtp State Protection Internal Relocation +3 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 4 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Tran Cong Dang

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 (non Refoulement) / Leave Application Refused on Papers (consideration Only)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant faced a real risk of proscribed harm (torture/CIDTP/BOR) if returned
  2. 2 Whether the Board erred in law, acted irrationally or breached procedural fairness
  3. 3 Whether past threats met the severity threshold for non-refoulement protection

Ratio Decidendi

Leave refused because there was no reasonably arguable case: the Board's findings were reasonable on the facts, the alleged threats were of low intensity and did not meet the severity threshold for proscribed harm, state protection and internal relocation were available, and there was no error of law, irrationality or procedural unfairness warranting judicial review.

Court Disposition

Leave to apply for judicial review refused.

Orders

  • Leave to apply for judicial review refused.