NGUYEN DUC QUI v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION

HCAL 577/2022

[2025] HKCFI 5726

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST NO 577 OF 2022

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;

Leave to apply for judicial review be refused.

Observations for the Applicant:

Introduction

1.  This is an application for leave to apply for judicial review of the decision of the Director of Immigration (“the Director”) dated 24 May 2022 refusing to allow the Applicant to make a subsequent claim for non-refoulement protection after his previous claim had been rejected by the Director on 10 March 2017 under the Unified Screening Mechanism (“USM”) on all the applicable grounds, while he never brought any appeal to the Torture Claims Appeal Board (“Board”) against the Director’s decision, and was subsequently on 19 January 2018 repatriated to his home country.   

2.  The Applicant is a 30-year-old national of Vietnam who first entered Hong Kong illegally sometime in November 2013, and surrendered to the Immigration Department on 11 December 2013 when he raised a non-refoulement claim on the basis that if he returned to Vietnam he would be harmed or killed by his parents’ creditor over his parents’ debts.

Previous Non-Refoulement Claim          

3.  By a Notice of Decision dated 10 March 2017, the 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”).

4.  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 parents’ 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 reliable evidence of any real intention of his parents’ creditor to seriously harm or kill him other than to press him to repay his parents’ debts, that in any event it was a private monetary dispute between his parents and their 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 95 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 part 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 anyone to locate him.

5.  The Applicant as noted above never brought any appeal to the Board against the Director’s decision, and some 10 months later on 19 January 2018 he was repatriated to Vietnam.

Request To Make Subsequent Claim

6.  More than 3 years later on 20 April 2021, the Applicant sneaked back into Hong Kong, and was arrested by police on 16 February 2022.  After he was referred to the Immigration Department for investigation, he requested to make a subsequent claim on the basis that his parents’ creditor in his previous claim is still looking for him, while he also owed his own creditor money which he is unable to repay, and hence he fears of being harmed or killed by both creditors if refouled to Vietnam.     

7.  There are however constraints on a claimant who has previously made a non-refoulement claim to make a subsequent claim, as stipulated by Section 37ZO of the Immigration Ordinance as follows:

“(1) Except as provided in subsection (2), a person who has previously made a torture claim must not subsequently make another torture claim.

(2) A person may make a subsequent claim if the person provides sufficient evidence in writing to satisfy an immigration officer that –

(a) there has been a significant change of circumstances since the previous claim was finally determined or withdrawn; and

(b) the change, when taken together with the material previously submitted in support of the previous claim, would give the subsequent claim a realistic prospect of success.

(3) In deciding whether or not a person may make a subsequent claim under subsection (2), an immigration officer may take into account any finding of credibility or fact made by an immigration officer or the Appeal Board in relation to a torture claim previously made by the person.

(4) If an immigration officer decides that a person may make a subsequent claim under subsection (2), the immigration officer must give the person written notice of the decision.

 (5) If an immigration officer decides that a person may not make a subsequent claim under subsection (2), the immigration officer must give the person written notice of the decision, and the notice must also include the reasons for the decision.”

8.  Accordingly, the Director required the Applicant to provide further information and evidence in writing in support of his request within 14 days, which he subsequently did by a letter dated 23 March 2022 in which he basically repeated his claim as above.     

9.  By a Notice of Decision dated 24 May 2022, the Director refused to allow the Applicant to make a subsequent claim upon finding that the basis thereof was essentially the same as that of his previous claim, and that he failed to provide any or sufficient evidence in writing to satisfy an immigration officer that there has been any significant change of circumstances since his previous claim was determined, or that those changes when taken together with the material previously submitted in support of his previous claim would give his subsequent claim any realistic prospect of success given the unchallenged findings by the Director in his previous claim of the availability of both state protection and internal relocation to the Applicant upon his return to Vietnam to similarly negate whatever risk that may arise from his proposed subsequent claim.

10.  On 6 July 2022, the Applicant filed a Form 86 in these proceedings for leave to apply for judicial review of the Director’s decision, but no ground for seeking relief was given in his Form or supporting affirmation of the same date other than some bare and vague assertions that he cannot relocate to other places in Vietnam due to his health issue and the nationwide social network of the creditors but without any relevant details or corroborating evidence in support of such bare assertions, nor was he able to do so at the hearing of his application.                          

11.  In the premises and having considered the decision of the Director with rigorous examination and anxious scrutiny, I do not find any error of law or procedural unfairness in the decision or any failure to apply high standards of fairness in the consideration and assessment of the Applicant’s request to make a subsequent claim, and as I am not satisfied that there is any prospect of success in the Applicant’s intended application for judicial review, I refuse to grant leave and accordingly dismiss his 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