PHAM NGOC MINH v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD

HCAL 1087/2023

[2024] HKCFI 427

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST NO 1087 OF 2023

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 / the Applicant being absent in open court;

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

Observations for the Applicant:

1.  The Applicant is a 28-year-old national of Vietnam who entered Hong Kong illegally on 23 February 2022 and was arrested by police on 27 March 2022. After he was referred to the Immigration Department for investigation, he raised a non-refoulement claim on the basis that if he returned to Vietnam he would be harmed or killed by his creditor over his outstanding debts. He was subsequently released on recognizance pending the determination of his claim.

2.  The Applicant was born and raised in Xa Phuc Le, Huyen Thuy Nguyen, Hai Phong, Vietnam. After leaving school he worked in various manual jobs in his home district to make his living before starting to run his own cosmetic store in 2018 with financial assistance form his parents.

3.  In 2021 he expanded his business by borrowing a loan from a local money-lender with interest payable event month until full satisfaction of the loan, which he initially managed to make from his business income.

4.  However, his business did not fare well, and by end of 2021 he started to default with his interest payments, and that his creditor sent his men to his shop to threaten him, during which they beat him on one occasion that fractured his right forearm which he subsequently required medical treatment in a local hospital.

5.  After the assault the Applicant became fearful for his life, and so he fled to Cao Bang, and on 1 December 2021 he departed Vietnam for China, and from there he later sneaked into Hong Kong, and upon his subsequent arrest by the police he then raised his non-refoulement claim for protection, for which he completed a Non-refoulement Claim Form (“NCF”) on 18 July 2022 and attended screening interview before the Immigration Department with legal representation.

6.  By a Notice of Decision dated 26 August 2022 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 him being harmed or killed by 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 them to seriously harm or kill him other than to press him to repay his loan, that in any event it was a private monetary dispute between them 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 102 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 young 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 5 September 2022 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 January 2023 before the Board during which he gave evidence and answered questions raised of his claim by the Adjudicator for the Board. On 26 June 2023 his appeal was dismissed by the Board which also confirmed the Director’s decision.

9.  In its decision the Board accepted the Applicant’s claim of fear of harm from his creditor over his outstanding debts but found no reliable evidence of any real intention of his creditor to seriously harm or kill him other than to press him to repay his loan, and that in any event it was a private monetary dispute between them 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 for him to move safely to other part of the country away from his home district without any risk of being located that his claim for non-refoulement protection failed on all applicable grounds.

10.  On 4 July 2023 the Applicant filed his Form 86 for leave to apply for judicial review of the Board’s decision, and put forward the following grounds for his intended challenge:

(1)  That the Adjudicator reached the decision wrongly and was unfair and unreasonable in failing to recognize that the Applicant’s right to life must be protected by criminal law from the killings that he may face if deported to his home country;

(2)  That the Adjudicator failed to appreciate or give proper weight or importance to the presence of State Acquiescence in the Applicant’s case that led to an unfair outcome of rejecting his non-refoulement claim;

(3)  That the Adjudicator acted unreasonable and was procedurally unfair by placing too much reliance on COI but failed to take the Applicant’s personal background and experience into account;

(4)  That the Board had listed relevant COI which supported the Applicant’s aversions that the police in his home country would not be able to protect but failed to consider or give enough weight to such evidence and instead ruled otherwise against the Applicant’s case;

(5)  That the Adjudicator was procedurally improper or unfair when assessing whether or not to accept explanations provided by the Applicant and unreasonably required him to respond to questions that he was not in a position to offer any response which was a clear case of unfair attitude shown by the Board which in itself is enough to render its decision void;

(6)  That the Board failed to attain high standard of fairness required by the Wednesbury test in failing to accept the argument that corruption and incompetency of the administration in the Applicant’s country is still a very serious problem as reported by various human rights organizations which stated testament to the Applicant’s assertions that the decision should be considered unreasonable in the scope of public law; and

(7)  That the Adjudicator made a ruling to dismiss the Applicant’s claim based on findings which the Adjudicator ought to allow his appeal and thus the decision is irrational.

11.  These are however all just some bare and vague assertions of the Applicant without any relevant or necessary details or particulars or elaborations as to how they would apply to his case or how did the Adjudicator err in the decision or fail to attain high standard of fairness, or in what way was the decision unfair or unreasonable, or how did the Adjudicator act in a procedurally unfair or improper manner or fail to properly assess the relevant COI, or what relevancy was State Acquiescence to the Applicant’s case. None of these assertions were properly elaborated with the relevant or necessary details or particulars, and as such I do not find any of them reasonably arguable for his intended challenge, and in the absence of any error of law or procedural unfairness in his process before the Board or in its decision being clearly and properly identified by the Applicant, nor do I find any merits in his intended application.

12.  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.

13.  In the Applicant’s case, the fact is that it has been correctly established by both the Director and the Board in their 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.

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 12 December 2023 filed an affirmation requesting to withdraw his application as it is now safe for him to return to his home country.

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 his latest confirmation that it is now safe for him to return to his home country, I 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