BUI VAN TUAN v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD

HCAL 2050/2024

[2025] HKCFI 761

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST NO 2050 OF 2024

Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review
NOTIFICATION of the Judge’s decision (Ord 53 r 3)

Following:

	consideration of the documents only;            or
	consideration of the documents and oral submissions by the Applicant in open court;

1.  Extension of time for the application for leave to apply for Judicial Review of the decision of Torture Claims Appeal Board dated 20 November 2023 be refused; and

2.  The application for leave to apply for Judicial Review be dismissed.

Observations for the Applicant:

1.  The Applicant is a 34-year-old national of Vietnam who entered Hong Kong illegally on 17 February 2023 and was arrested by police on 23 February 2023. After he was referred to the Immigration Department for investigation, he raised a non-refoulement claim for protection on the basis that if he returned to Vietnam he would be harmed or killed by his creditor over his unpaid debts. He was subsequently released on recognizance pending the determination of his claim.

2.  The Applicant was born in Hong Kong in 1990 as a refugee and was repatriated with his parents to Vietnam in 1993 where he was raised in Quan Duong Kinh, Thanh Pho, Haiphong City. After leaving school he worked as a construction worker, got married and raised a family with a son in his home district.

3.  In 2019 he started his own garments business with the help of a loan borrowed from a local money-lender repayable within 8 years and with monthly interest payments which he initially managed to make from his business income.

4.  However, his business turned bad soon after the breakout of the Covid-19 pandemic, and by end of 2020 his business was closed down, and when he defaulted with his loan repayment, his creditor started to send men to threaten him, and after one occasion in July 2021 when those men attacked him with knives that he suffered cuts and slashes all over his body and was subsequently taken to a local hospital for medical treatments.

5.  Upon discharge from hospital, the Applicant fled from his home district to Vung Tau to avoid his creditor, but later when he heard that his creditor had sent men to look for him everywhere, the Applicant felt it was no longer safe to remain in Vietnam, and so on 17 February 2023 he departed the country for China, and from there he later sneaked into Hong Kong, and upon his arrest by the police he then raised his non-refoulement claim for protection, for which he completed a Non-refoulement Claim Form (“NCF”) on 25 April 2023 and attended screening interview before the Immigration Department with legal representation from the Duty Lawyer Service (“DLS”).

6.  By a Notice of Decision dated 24 May 2023 the Director of Immigration (“Director”) rejected the Applicant’s claim on all the applicable grounds including risk of torture under Part VIIC of the Immigration Ordinance, Cap 115 (“Torture Risk”), risk of his absolute or non-derogable rights under the Hong Kong Bill of Rights Ordinance, Cap 383 (“HKBOR”) being violated including right to life under Article 2 (“BOR 2 Risk”), risk of torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment under Article 3 of HKBOR (“BOR 3 Risk”), and risk of persecution with reference to the non-refoulement principle under Article 33 of the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees (“Persecution Risk”).

7.  In his decision the Director took into account of all the relevant circumstances of the Applicant’s claim and assessed the level of risk of harm from his creditor and followers upon his return to Vietnam as low due to the low intensity and frequency of past ill-treatment from them, that there is no evidence of any real intention of his creditor to seriously harm or kill him other than to press him to repay his debts, that in any event it was a private monetary dispute between him and his creditor only without any official involvement that state or police protection would be available to the Applicant if resorted to, and that reliable and objective Country of Origin Information (“COI”) show that reasonable internal relocation alternatives are available in Vietnam with a large population of 100 million people spread across a vast territory of more than 331,000 square kilometers that it would not be unduly harsh for the Applicant as an able-bodied adult with working experience to move to other areas of the country away from his home district in large cities such as Ho Chi Minh City where it would be difficult if not impossible for his creditor to locate him.

8.  On 1 June 2023 the Applicant lodged an appeal to the Torture Claims Appeal Board (“Board”) against the Director’s decision, and for which he attended an oral hearing on 13 October 2023 before the Board during which he gave evidence and answered questions raised of his claim by the Adjudicator for the Board. On 20 November 2023 his appeal was dismissed by the Board which also confirmed the Director’s decision.

9.  In its decision the Board found no reliable evidence of any real intention of the Applicant’s creditor to seriously harm or kill him other than to press him to repay his debts, and that in any event it was a private monetary dispute between the 2 of them only without any official involvement that state or police protection would be available to the Applicant upon his return to Vietnam as well as reasonable internal relocation alternatives for him to move safely to other parts of the country away from his home district without any risk of being located by his creditor that his claim for non-refoulement protection failed on all applicable grounds.

10.  On 7 November 2024 the Applicant filed his Form 86 for leave to apply for judicial review of the Board’s decision, but no ground for seeking relief was given in his Form or in his supporting affirmation of the same date in which he just repeated his claim as before of fear of harm from his creditor over his unpaid debts but without putting forth any proper ground for his intended challenge.

11.  By then the Applicant was also out of time with his application, as Order 53 rule 4(1) of the Rules of the High Court, Cap 4A requires that an application for leave to apply for judicial review be made promptly and in any event within three months from the day when grounds for the application first arose unless the Court considers that there is good reason to extend the period within which the application shall be made.

12.  As the last day of the three-month period for him to file his Form 86 fell on 20 February 2024, the Applicant was therefore more than 7 months late with his application, and in considering whether to extend time, the Court shall have regard to (i) the length of the delay; (ii) the reason for the delay; (iii) the merits of the intended application; and (iv) any prejudice to the putative respondent and to public administration: AW v Director of Immigration [2016] 2 HKC 393.

13.  In the Applicant’s case, a delay of more than 7 months must be considered as substantial and inordinate, for which he explained at the hearing that he never received the decision in the mail and that he was sent to prison on 13 December 2023 for undertaking unauthorized employment that he was not aware of the decision until his subsequent discharge from prison, and was transferred to detention of Immigration Department that he was so informed by his immigration officer, but by then he was already out of time with his application.

14.  The record shows that the decision was sent on the same day of 20 November 2023 to the Applicant’s then reported address without being returned through undelivered post, and if the Applicant was indeed sent to prison on 13 December 2023, he would have received the decision well before his alleged imprisonment, and given the availability of welfare officers stationed there to offer assistances with his application, I am not satisfied that the Applicant had provided any good or valid reason for his such serious delay.

15.  As for the merits, if any, of his intended application, as noted above the Applicant failed to put forth any proper ground for his intended challenge in his Form or affirmation, nor was he able to do so at the hearing of his application other than just repeating his claim as before. As such, and in the absence of any error of law or irrationality or procedural unfairness in his process before the Board or in its decision being clearly and properly identified by the Applicant, I do not find any merits in his intended application either.

16.  As has been repeatedly emphasized by the Court of Appeal, judicial review does not operate as a rehearing of a non-refoulement claim when the proper occasion for the Applicant to present and articulate his claim is in the screening process and interview before the Immigration Department and in the process before the Board where the evaluation of the risk of harm is primarily a matter for the Director and the Board as they are entitled to make such evaluation based on the evidence available to them that the court will not usurp their role as primary decision makers in the absence of any legal error or procedural unfairness or irrationality in their decisions being clearly and properly identified by the Applicant, as judicial review is not an avenue for revisiting the assessment by them in the hope that the court may consider the matter afresh: Re Lakhwinder Singh [2018] HKCA 246; Re Daljit Singh [2018] HKCA 328; Re Mudannayakalage Chaminda Pushpa Kumara [2018] HKCA 400; and Nupur Mst v Director of Immigration [2018] HKCA 524.

17.  In the Applicant’s case, the fact is that it has been established by both the Director and the Board in their respective decisions that the risk of harm in his claim if real is a localized one and that it is not unreasonable or unsafe for him to relocate to other part of Vietnam, there is simply no justification to afford him with non-refoulement protection in Hong Kong: see TK v Jenkins & Anor [2013] 1 HKC 526.

18.  In the premises, and having considered the decisions of both the Director and the Board with rigorous examination and anxious scrutiny, I do not find any error of law or procedural unfairness in either of them, nor any failure on their part to apply high standards of fairness in their consideration and assessment of the Applicant’s claim.

19.  For all these reasons I am not satisfied that there is any prospect of success in the Applicant’s intended application for judicial review, and in the absence of any good reason for his serious delay, I refuse to extend time and accordingly dismiss his leave application.

Where leave to apply has been granted, Applicants and their legal advisers are reminded of their obligation to reconsider the merits of their application in the light of the Respondent’s evidence

Form CALL-1