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

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

The applicant failed to identify arguable public law grounds or demonstrate error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the Board's findings; the Board applied the law correctly and its factual credibility, severity and protection findings were not susceptible to judicial review, therefore leave to apply for judicial review was not reasonably arguable and was dismissed.

Citation
[2026] HKCFI 1035
Parties
Applicant: Vu Tien Dat; 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
27 February 2026
Case Number
HCAL920/2021
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review / Leave Application (determined Under O.53 R.3) — Dismissed
Outcome
Leave application dismissed; Form 86 amended on the Court's own motion.
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, Torture Risk, Judicial Review (leave), Credibility Findings, Internal Relocation, Procedural Fairness
Source Language
EN
Constitutional and Administrative Law Immigration Law Human Rights Law Non Refoulement Torture Risk Judicial Review (leave) Credibility Findings Internal Relocation +1 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 13 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Vu Tien Dat

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 Application (determined Under O.53 R.3) — Dismissed

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant established any public law error in the Board's decision
  2. 2 Whether the Board correctly applied the law on non-refoulement and torture risk
  3. 3 Whether the applicant's credibility findings could be impugned in judicial review

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant failed to identify arguable public law grounds or demonstrate error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the Board's findings; the Board applied the law correctly and its factual credibility, severity and protection findings were not susceptible to judicial review, therefore leave to apply for judicial review was not reasonably arguable and was dismissed.

Court Disposition

Leave application dismissed; Form 86 amended on the Court's own motion.

Orders

  • The Form 86 be amended on the court's own motion.
  • The applicant's application for leave to apply for judicial review be dismissed.