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

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

Leave was refused because the applicant failed to demonstrate any arguable public law ground or procedural unfairness, the Board made adverse credibility findings upheld on review, and the applicant failed to show lack of state protection or impossibility of internal relocation so there was no realistic prospect of...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2026] HKCFI 1361
Parties
Applicant: Tran Thi Bich; 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
HCAL1563/2021
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review Leave Application / Leave Application Refused (decision on Documents)
Outcome
Leave to apply for judicial review refused; application dismissed.
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, Torture, Right to Life, Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, Internal Relocation, Credibility Assessment, Procedural Fairness, Judicial Review Leave
Source Language
en
Constitutional Law Administrative Law Immigration Law Human Rights 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 2 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Tran Thi Bich

Applicant

Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office

Putative Respondent

Director of Immigration

Putative Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review Leave Application / Leave Application Refused (decision on Documents)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Board breached public law requirements including procedural fairness
  2. 2 Whether the Board erred in assessing credibility and evidence
  3. 3 Whether state protection and internal relocation were properly assessed

Ratio Decidendi

Leave was refused because the applicant failed to demonstrate any arguable public law ground or procedural unfairness, the Board made adverse credibility findings upheld on review, and the applicant failed to show lack of state protection or impossibility of internal relocation so there was no realistic prospect of success.

Court Disposition

Leave to apply for judicial review refused; application dismissed.

Orders

  • Leave to apply for judicial review refused.
  • Application dismissed.