NGUYEN VAN THANH v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

HCAL 1023/2020

[2026] HKCFI 780

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST

NO 1023 OF 2020

________________________

BETWEEN

________________

__________________

D E C I S I O N

__________________

Introduction

1.  On 12 November 2025, this court heard the applicant’s application for leave to apply for judicial review (“Leave Application”) against the Appeal Board’s decision. By order dated 12 November, the Leave Application was dismissed. After the court’s decision, this court received a summons (“Summons”) filed by the applicant dated 7 January 2026 together with a supporting affirmation. Upon receipt of the Summons and read the affirmation, I could not understand the nature of the applicant’s application.

Discussion

2.  Since the applicant was unrepresented and was in detention, I directed an earlier hearing to be held so that this court would have an opportunity to understand from the applicant what he intended to apply for. Since the contents of the Summons as well as the affirmation were quite confusing, at the beginning of the hearing and with the assistance of the interpreter, I explained to the applicant the contents of the Summons and the affirmation.

3.  The applicant just kept repeating the facts of his case. He kept stating that he wanted to apply for an order to be allowed to stay in Hong Kong as he did not wish to go back to Vietnam. He also asked this court to make an order granting his release from custody. He told this court that once he was released, his family could resolve his debt problem to allow him to go home.

4.  The applicant even made a reference to the fact that he had in fact filed another application, maybe in December 2025 or in January 2026, to apply for an order to be released from custody.

Conclusion

5.  After several exchanges between the court and the applicant, it would appear that the ultimate application the applicant wanted to make was to apply for an order of habeas corpus. Plainly, this kind of order would be beyond the jurisdiction of this court and the applicant admitted that he actually had made a wrong application in the Summons.

6.  In the circumstances, I make no order on the Summons.