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

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

The Board's adverse credibility findings and subsidiary assessments on risk, state protection and internal relocation were legally sound, procedurally fair and not Wednesbury unreasonable; the applicant failed to discharge the burden of proof and therefore there was no arguable ground for judicial review, so leave to apply for judicial review is refused.

Citation
[2022] HKCFI 2856
Parties
Applicant: Tran Thi Tinh; 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
20 September 2022
Case Number
HCAL1189/2018
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review / Decision on Leave Application Refused
Outcome
Leave to apply for judicial review refused.
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, Unified Screening Mechanism (usm), Credibility Findings, State Protection, Internal Relocation, Wednesbury Unreasonableness
Source Language
EN
Immigration Constitutional and Administrative Law Refugee and Non Refoulement Law Judicial Review Non Refoulement Unified Screening Mechanism (usm) Credibility Findings State Protection +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 4 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Tran Thi Tinh

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 / Decision on Leave Application Refused

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Board's adverse credibility finding was amenable to judicial review
  2. 2 Whether the Board erred in law or acted irrationally in assessing risk under Torture, BOR2, BOR3 and Persecution grounds
  3. 3 Whether adequate state protection and viable internal relocation were available

Ratio Decidendi

The Board's adverse credibility findings and subsidiary assessments on risk, state protection and internal relocation were legally sound, procedurally fair and not Wednesbury unreasonable; the applicant failed to discharge the burden of proof and therefore there was no arguable ground for judicial review, so leave to apply for judicial review is refused.

Court Disposition

Leave to apply for judicial review refused.

Orders

  • Leave to apply for judicial review refused.