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

VU THI TU 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 failed to demonstrate any arguable error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the Board's Decision; the Board's adverse credibility findings and conclusions that risk was low, state protection existed and internal relocation was viable...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2021] HKCFI 1711
Parties
Applicant: Vu Thi Tu; 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 July 2021
Case Number
HCAL275/2021
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review / Leave Stage (refused)
Outcome
Leave to apply for judicial review refused; application dismissed.
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, Torture, CIDTP, Internal Relocation, State Protection, Leave to Apply for Judicial Review, Procedural Fairness, Wednesbury Irrationality
Source Language
en
Constitutional Law Administrative Law Immigration Law Human Rights Law Refugee Law Non Refoulement Torture CIDTP +5 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 5 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Vu Thi Tu

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 Stage (refused)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Board erred in law or committed procedural unfairness in assessing the non-refoulement/torture/CIDTP/BOR2/refugee risks
  2. 2 Whether the applicant established a real risk of torture or other ill-treatment on return
  3. 3 Whether state protection in Vietnam was available and effective

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the applicant failed to demonstrate any arguable error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the Board's Decision; the Board's adverse credibility findings and conclusions that risk was low, state protection existed and internal relocation was viable meant the applicant had no reasonable prospect of success.

Court Disposition

Leave to apply for judicial review refused; application dismissed.

Orders

  • Leave to apply for judicial review refused.
  • Applicant's application dismissed.