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

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

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the applicant had no reasonable prospect of success: the Board's adverse credibility findings and conclusions that state protection and internal relocation were available were sustainable, and there was no error of law, procedural unfairness or Wednesbury unreasonableness in the Board's decision.

Citation
[2021] HKCFI 846
Parties
Applicant: Tran Thi Dan; 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
7 April 2021
Case Number
HCAL1398/2018
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review (leave to Apply) / Leave Application (refused)
Outcome
Leave to apply for judicial review refused; application dismissed.
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, Torture/cidtp, State Protection, Internal Relocation, Credibility Findings, Standard of Review (wednesbury/unreasonableness), Procedural Fairness, Leave for Judicial Review
Source Language
EN
Immigration Law Administrative Law Constitutional Law Human Rights Law Refugee Law Non Refoulement Torture/cidtp State Protection +5 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 6 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Tran Thi Dan

Applicant

Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office

Putative Respondent

Director of Immigration

Putative Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review (leave to Apply) / Leave Application (refused)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Board committed error of law or procedural unfairness in rejecting applicant's non-refoulement/torture claim
  2. 2 Whether the Board's adverse credibility finding was irrational or Wednesbury unreasonable
  3. 3 Whether effective state protection or internal relocation was reasonably available to the applicant

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the applicant had no reasonable prospect of success: the Board's adverse credibility findings and conclusions that state protection and internal relocation were available were sustainable, and there was no error of law, procedural unfairness or Wednesbury unreasonableness in the Board's decision.

Court Disposition

Leave to apply for judicial review refused; application dismissed.

Orders

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