LUONG THI CHINH v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

CACV 560/2024, [2025] HKCA 623

On Appeal From [2024] HKCFI 3539

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 560 OF 2024

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 2341 OF 2019)

________________________

_____________________

_______________

J U D G M E N T

_______________

Hon Chow JA (giving the Judgment of the Court):

1.  This is the Applicant’s appeal against the order of Deputy High Court Judge To (“the Judge”) dated 17 December 2024 (“the Order”) refusing to grant leave to apply for judicial review of the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office (“the Board”) dated 2 August 2019, whereby the Board dismissed the Applicant’s appeal against the decision of the Director of Immigration (“the Director”) dated 11 August 2017.

BACKGROUND

2.  The Applicant is a national of Vietnam. She claimed that she entered Hong Kong illegally on 25 August 2016. On 29 August 2016, she surrendered herself to the Immigration Department. On 27 June 2017, she lodged a non-refoulement claim on the basis that, if refouled, she would be harmed or killed by her creditors because she could not repay some debts owed by her and her husband. Details of the Applicant’s claim have been summarised by the Judge at §§6-10 of the CALL-1 Form.

3.  By a Notice of Decision dated 11 August 2017 (“the Director’s Decision”), the Director dismissed the Applicant’s non-refoulement claim with reference to all applicable risks: BOR 2 risk[1], BOR 3 risk[2], persecution risk[3], and risk of torture[4].

4.  The Applicant appealed the Director’s Decision to the Board. On 2 August 2019, the Board dismissed the Applicant’s appeal, and confirmed the Director’s Decision (“the Board’s Decision”). The Board’s reasons for its decision were summarised by the Judge at §§11-17 of the CALL-1 Form, as follows:

“[11] 申請人在上訴聆訊時作供。上訴委員會認為她的口供跟免遺返表格及較早前提供六份陳述書內的證供有嚴重分岐，而她亦無法提供合理解說。例如，她在免遺返表格稱向六名債主合共借得50億盾。在聆訊時，她算出的貸款總額僅為26.2億盾。她的解釋是她向家人借了30億盾，還有利息。她又說當生意好的時候，黑社會債主會加收雙倍利息。在免遺返表格內，她指稱向六名債主借款，但在早前提供六份陳述書，她從沒有提及有六名債主，而所提及一些債主的姓名亦有所不同。她在陳述書所述的討債過程、逃離家園的過程及報案過程亦跟免遺返表格內所聲稱的不符。此外，她在上訴聆訊的部分指稱是首次提供的，上訴委員會對其可信性存疑。總結而言，上訴委員會認為她不可信，裁定她未能證實她所依據的事實。

[12] 即使接納她的全部證供，上訴委員會亦不認為申請人所受到的虐待或傷害嚴重。雖然債主們恐嚇要殺死她，每當找到她時，卻沒殺害或嚴重地傷害她，而只是毆打她及重複恐嚇她。因此，上訴委員會認為債主們可能是想透過恐嚇及一般暴力，迫使她還款，但沒有計劃嚴重地傷害她或殺害她。它裁定申請人將來面對受酷刑或被殺害的風險不高。

[13] 就越南公安沒有跟進申請人對債主們討債行為的指稱，上訴委員會認為沒有證據支持這是越南政府的立場，而非個別官員的違規行為。它接納處長在通知書內第17、18及20段的決定；並基於可靠的國情資料裁定，若申請人返回越南，她可從越南政府得到足夠的保護。

[14] 上訴委員會亦不接納申請人曾向公安舉報債主們的討債行為，所以亦不接納關於公安不跟進她的投訴的指控。因此，上訴委員會亦裁定沒有證據證明越南政府容許或默許債主們的討債行為。

[15] 上訴委員會認為申請人所懼怕的風險是源自她與債主們的私人財務糾紛，不屬於1951年《關於難民地位的公約》所保護的五項理由的範圍內。上訴委員會亦不接納她有正當理由畏懼她所指稱的風險。

[16] 經考慮過國情資料後，上訴委員會又認為申請人可以遷移到胡志明市及河內等大城市生活，以低技術工作為生，避開她所指稱的風險。

[17] 將適用於統一審核機制下的四個適用理由的法律原則適用於它上述裁定的事實後，上訴委員會裁定，申請人的聲請不屬於統一審核機制下的四個適用的理由內的任何一個，沒有資格得到免遣返保護。而駁回她的上訴。”

THE JUDGE’S DECISION

5.  On 14 August 2019, the Applicant filed a Form 86 to apply for leave to apply for judicial review of the Board’s Decision. No ground for seeking relief was given in the Form 86. In her supporting affirmation of the same date, the Applicant merely repeated the factual basis of her claim.

6.  On 17 December 2024, the Judge gave his decision refusing to grant leave to apply for judicial review, for the following reasons:

“[20] 實質上，申請人的申請理由是，她不同意上訴委員會裁定她的案情不符合統一審核機制下的四個適用的理由內的任何一個。

[21] 上訴委員會基於申請人的證據，評估她的可信性，而作出事實裁定。它亦參閱適用的國情資料，作出相關的事實裁定。這些事實裁定是屬於上訴委員會專有的權限。然後，上訴委員會將免遣返的法律原則適用於它所裁定的事實，裁定申請人的案情不符合統一審核機制下的四個適用的理由內的任何一個。這是一個混合的事實與法律的裁定。若上訴委員會的裁定不涉及法律錯誤、程序不公平或不合理的情況，法庭審理司法覆核申請時不能干預。

[22] 經認真及仔細審查上訴委員會的裁決、相關的文件及證據後，法庭確定上訴委員會正確地列出統一審核機制下所有適用的四個免遺返理由包括 ：酷刑風險、《人權法案》第三款的風險、《人權法案》第二款的風險及受迫害的風險。上訴委員會亦正確地引述適用的法律原則，舉證標準，並援引了相關案例支持它的決定。它知悉到在裁決上訴時須重新考慮所有相關事情的始末，而並非只考慮入境處處長的決定是否正確。上訴委員會的裁定不涉及法律錯誤。它的決定亦不存在可被視為程序不公平或「溫斯伯里」不合理的況 (即按照Wednesbury一案所訂標準，原審法官祇須審查案中證據，從而決定是否根據這些證據，一個合理的法官，對自己作出恰當的法律指引後，不可能會作出的決定)。它的決定完全沒有絲毫錯誤，申請人在本案沒有合理可爭辯的論據，她的司法覆核申請沒有合理成功機會。”

THIS APPEAL

7.  In her Notice of Appeal filed on 23 December 2024, the Applicant repeats her claim that her life will be seriously threatened, and she will probably die if she returns to Vietnam, because most creditors and gangsters in Vietnam are cruel and violent, and they disregard the law and are willing to kill people to satisfy their anger and ferocity. She disagrees with the Director’s assessment that she could move to another location in Vietnam to avoid her creditors for various reasons, and alleges that the Immigration Department did not consider her human rights under various instruments including the Basic Law and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

8.  In her affirmation of the same date, the Applicant states that “there is a good ground of appeal that was not necessarily considered at the stage of applying for leave for judicial review”, but she fails to identify what that ground might be. She also states that she has been informed that the Director and the Board “did not see the grounds to reverse their decisions”, without giving any further explanation or particulars.

9.  On 23 December 2024, the Applicant consented to her appeal being disposed of on paper by the Court without an oral hearing.

10.  The Applicant has failed to lodge any written submissions in support of her appeal contrary to the directions given by the Registrar of Civil Appeals on 23 December 2024.

DISCUSSION

11.  In an appeal against refusal of leave to apply for judicial review in non-refoulement cases, the Court of Appeal would only examine the decision of the judge in light of the grounds advanced by the applicant. If no viable ground is put forward to reverse the judge’s decision, the appeal should be dismissed. The Court of Appeal’s role is not to examine the Board’s decision afresh as if it was a fresh application for judicial review (see Nupur Mst v Director of Immigration [2018] HKCA 524, at §14(6)).

12.  Further, the assessment of evidence, country of origin information, risk of harm, state protection and viability of internal relocation are primarily within the province of the Board and the Director. The court will not intervene by way of judicial review unless there are errors of law or procedural unfairness or irrationality in the decision of the Board: Re Kartini [2019] HKCA 1022. No such error of law or procedural unfairness or irrationality in the decision of the Board is shown in the present case.

13.  The Applicant has failed to identify or show any error in the Judge’s decision refusing to grant leave to apply for judicial review, or raise any viable ground of appeal against the Order.

14.  The Applicant’s appeal has no merit, and is dismissed.

15.  This judgment is written in English although the Judge’s decision below was written in Chinese, because the Applicant’s Notice of Appeal and affirmation are both written in English. If required, the Applicant may make an appointment with the clerk to this Court for an oral interpretation of this judgment in the Applicant’s preferred language at a mutually convenient time in the Court’s premises.