VU VAN HIEU 對 酷刑聲請上訴委員會／免遣返聲請呈請辦事處及另一人 [Decision on Leave Application]

VU VAN HIEU 對 酷刑聲請上訴委員會／免遣返聲請呈請辦事處及另一人 [Decision on Leave Application]

Permission for judicial review was refused because the Appellate Board's decision involved no error of law, no procedural unfairness and was not Wednesbury unreasonable; the challenges were factual credibility disputes and reliance on authoritative country information was reasonable.

Citation
[2022] HKCFI 2112
Parties
Applicant: Vu Van Hieu; First Respondent: Appeal Board (Torture/Refoulement); Second Respondent: Director of Immigration
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
15 July 2022
Case Number
HCAL261/2019
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Permission Application (refused)
Outcome
Permission to apply for judicial review refused
Legal Topics
Non‑refoulement, Torture and Cruel Inhuman Degrading Treatment, Credibility Assessment, Country of Origin Information, Wednesbury Unreasonableness
Source Language
CH
Immigration Law Administrative Law Constitutional Law Human Rights Law Asylum and Non‑refoulement Non‑refoulement Torture and Cruel Inhuman Degrading Treatment Credibility Assessment +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 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Vu Van Hieu

Applicant

Appeal Board (Torture/Refoulement)

First Respondent

Director of Immigration

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Permission Application (refused)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Appellate Board exhibited bias in its credibility assessment
  2. 2 Whether the Board relied on inaccurate or inappropriate country‑of‑origin materials
  3. 3 Whether the Board made an error of law or procedural unfairness warranting judicial review

Ratio Decidendi

Permission for judicial review was refused because the Appellate Board's decision involved no error of law, no procedural unfairness and was not Wednesbury unreasonable; the challenges were factual credibility disputes and reliance on authoritative country information was reasonable.

Court Disposition

Permission to apply for judicial review refused

Orders

  • Permission to apply for judicial review refused