VU VAN TUNG v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD [Decision on Leave Application]

VU VAN TUNG v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD [Decision on Leave Application]

Leave was dismissed because the applicant failed to identify any arguable legal error, irrationality or procedural unfairness in the Director's or Board's decisions; the Board's adverse credibility findings and the assessments that the risk was low and that internal relocation was available were rational and supported by the evidence, so there was no prospect of success on judicial review.

Citation
[2024] HKCFI 1737
Parties
Applicant: Vu Van Tung; Putative Respondent: Torture Claims Appeal Board; Putative Interested Party: Director of Immigration
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
9 July 2024
Case Number
HCAL880/2020
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review (leave Application) / Decision on Leave Application
Outcome
Leave application dismissed
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, Torture Risk (immigration Ordinance Part Viic), HKBOR Articles 2 and 3, Credibility Assessment, Internal Relocation, Procedural Fairness, Leave to Apply for Judicial Review
Source Language
EN
Constitutional and Administrative Law Immigration Law Human Rights Law Refugee and Non Refoulement Law Non Refoulement Torture Risk (immigration Ordinance Part Viic) HKBOR Articles 2 and 3 Credibility Assessment +3 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 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Vu Van Tung

Applicant

Torture Claims Appeal Board

Putative Respondent

Director of Immigration

Putative Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review (leave Application) / Decision on Leave Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether applicant established risk of torture under Part VIIC of the Immigration Ordinance
  2. 2 Whether risks engage Hong Kong Bill of Rights Articles 2 or 3
  3. 3 Whether applicant established persecution under Article 33 of the 1951 Refugee Convention

Ratio Decidendi

Leave was dismissed because the applicant failed to identify any arguable legal error, irrationality or procedural unfairness in the Director's or Board's decisions; the Board's adverse credibility findings and the assessments that the risk was low and that internal relocation was available were rational and supported by the evidence, so there was no prospect of success on judicial review.

Court Disposition

Leave application dismissed

Orders

  • Application for leave to apply for judicial review dismissed