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

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

Refused leave and denied extension of time because the application was filed out of time without adequate explanation, the Board's findings on risk, state protection and internal relocation were not legally flawed or Wednesbury unreasonable, there was no procedural unfairness or error of law, and the intended judicial review had no realistic prospect of success.

Citation
[2022] HKCFI 1242
Parties
Applicant: Vu Van 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
10 May 2022
Case Number
HCAL112/2022
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review Application for Leave / Application for Leave (refused)
Outcome
Leave to apply for judicial review refused; extension of time refused; application dismissed
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, Risk of Torture, Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (cidtp), Persecution, Internal Relocation, State Protection, Procedural Fairness, Extension of Time / Delay, Leave to Apply for Judicial Review, Assessment of Country of Origin Information (coi)
Source Language
EN
Constitutional Law Administrative Law Immigration Law Refugee Law Human Rights Law Non Refoulement Risk of Torture Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (cidtp) +7 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 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Vu Van Dat

Applicant

Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office

Putative Respondent

Director of Immigration

Putative Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review Application for Leave / Application for Leave (refused)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether extension of time should be granted for a late application for leave to apply for judicial review
  2. 2 Whether the Torture Claims Appeal Board/Director erred in law, committed procedural unfairness or reached irrational/Wednesbury unreasonable findings
  3. 3 Whether the applicant faces a real risk of torture, CIDTP, death or persecution on return to Vietnam

Ratio Decidendi

Refused leave and denied extension of time because the application was filed out of time without adequate explanation, the Board's findings on risk, state protection and internal relocation were not legally flawed or Wednesbury unreasonable, there was no procedural unfairness or error of law, and the intended judicial review had no realistic prospect of success.

Court Disposition

Leave to apply for judicial review refused; extension of time refused; application dismissed

Orders

  • Leave to apply for judicial review refused
  • Extension of time refused