SIRIBUT BANGON v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD

HCAL 83/2023

[2026] HKCFI 396

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST NO 83 OF 2023

  Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review

NOTIFICATION of the Judge’s decision (Ord 53 r 3)

Following:

The application for leave to apply for judicial review be dismissed.

Observations for the Applicant:

1.  The Applicant is a 43-year-old national of Thailand who arrived in Hong Kong on 11 February 2020 as a visitor with permission to remain as such up to 12 March 2020 when she did not depart and instead overstayed, and was arrested some 7 months later on 12 November 2020 for breach of her condition of stay and was subsequently convicted and sentenced to prison for 2 months. After her discharge from prison and was referred to the Immigration Department for deportation, she raised a non-refoulement claim for protection on the basis that if she returned to Thailand she would be harmed or killed by her creditor for failing to repay her debts and/or by her former boyfriend for ending their relationship. She was subsequently released on recognizance pending the determination of her claim.

2.  The Applicant was born and raised in Sakon Nakhon, Thailand. After leaving school she worked as a masseuse to make her living, got married and raised a family with a son in her home district.

3.  Her marriage however ended in a divorce, and in 2016 she met her former boyfriend and soon started cohabited together, but soon she found him to be abusive towards her, and when drunk he would become violent and hit her by punching and kicking her causing her fear and injuries.

4.  In order to become financially independent, the Applicant in 2018 started her own food stall business with the help of a loan borrowed from a local money-lender with monthly interests payments which she initially managed to make from her business income.

5.  However, her business did not fare well, and by July 2018 when she defaulted with her loan repayment, her creditor started to send men to threaten her, and after being beaten by those men on several occasions, the Applicant became fearful for her safety, and to also get away from her boyfriend’s abuses, she therefore departed Thailand on 11 February 2020 for Hong Kong where she subsequently overstayed, and upon her arrest some 7 months later she then raised her non-refoulement claim for protection, for which she completed a Non-refoulement Claim Form (“NCF”) on 19 July 2021 and attended screening interview before the Immigration Department with legal representation from the Duty Lawyer Service (“DLS”).             

6.  By a Notice of Decision dated 13 September 2021, 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 her creditor or former boyfriend upon her return to Thailand 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 either of them to seriously harm or kill her other than to press her to repay her debts by her creditor or to resume their relationship by her former boyfriend, that in any event these were private monetary or relationship disputes between them 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 Thailand with a large population of 68 million people spread across a vast territory of more than 513,000 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 her home district in large cities such as Chiang Mai or Nonthaburi where it would be difficult if not impossible for her creditor or former boyfriend to locate her.

8.  On 24 September 2021, the Applicant lodged an appeal to the Torture Claims Appeal Board (“Board”) against the Director’s decision, and for which she attended an oral hearing on 12 July 2022 before the Board during which she gave evidence and answered questions raised of her claim by the Adjudicator for the Board. On 30 November 2022 her appeal was dismissed by the Board which also confirmed the Director’s decision.

9.  In its decision[1], the Board found material inconsistencies and discrepancies in the Applicant’s evidence that it doubted the credibility of her claim of fear of harm from her creditor or her former boyfriend that caused her to leave her country to come to Hong Kong to seek protection, that her credibility was further undermined by her failure to raise her claim upon first arriving in Hong Kong until some 7 months later and only after her arrest, that even if her account of events prior to her departure of Thailand were true that that there was no reliable evidence of any real intention of her creditor or her former boyfriend to seriously harm or kill her, and that in any event these were private monetary and relationship disputes between them only without any official involvement that state or police protection would be available to the Applicant upon her return to Thailand to negate any such risks that her claim for non-refoulement protection failed on all applicable grounds.    

10.  On 19 January 2023, the Applicant filed her Form 86 for leave to apply for judicial review of the Board’s decision, but no ground for seeking relief was given in her Form or her supporting affirmation of the same date to which she just attached a copy of the decision but without putting forth any proper ground for her intended challenge. As such, and in the absence of any error of law or irrationality or procedural unfairness in her process before the Board or in its decision being clearly and properly identified by the Applicant, I do not find any reasonably arguable basis for her intended challenge of the Board’s decision.

11.  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.

12.  In the Applicant’s case, the Board rejected her claim essentially on its adverse finding on her credibility for the thorough and detailed analysis and reasoning set out in its decision with the benefit of hearing her in her oral evidence and her answers to questions raised of her claim, and in the absence of any error of law or procedural unfairness in her process before the Board or in its decision being clearly and properly identified by the Applicant, I do not find any reasonably arguable basis to challenge the finding of the Board.

13.  Furthermore, the fact is that it has also been correctly established by the Director in his decision that the risks of harm in the Applicant’s claim even if real are localized ones and that it is not unreasonable or unsafe for her to relocate to other part of Thailand, a decision also agreed and confirmed by the Board, there is simply no justification to afford her with non-refoulement protection in Hong Kong: see TK v Jenkins & Anor [2013] 1 HKC 526.                

14.  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.

15.  Moreover, the Applicant recently on 19 December 2025 in writing requested to withdraw her application as her issues in her home country have been resolved that she now wants to return to Thailand as soon as possible.

16.  In the premises, as I am for the given reasons not satisfied that there is any prospect of success in the Applicant’s intended application for judicial review, and in view of her latest confirmation of no more issues for her to return to her home country, I accordingly dismiss her 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