|
HCAL 2284/2020
[2025] HKCFI 4826
IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST No. 2284 of 2020
|
BETWEEN
|
| |
Doan Thi Thom |
Applicant |
| |
and |
|
| |
Torture Claims Appeal Board/
Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office |
Putative Respondent |
| |
and |
|
| |
Director of Immigration |
Putative Interested Party |
Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review
NOTIFICATION of the Judge’s decision (Ord. 53 r. 3)
Following;
Order by Deputy High Court Judge K.W. Lung:
1. The extension of time for the application for Judicial Review be refused; and
2. The application for leave to apply for Judicial Review be dismissed.
Observations for the Applicant:
THE APPLICATION
1. The applicant applies for leave to apply for judicial review of the Decision dated 14 December 2018 of the Torture Claims Appeal Board (“the Board’s Decision”). Her application is late. Her application shall not be later than 3 months from the date of the Board’s Decision[1], which expired on 14 March 2019. Her application was filed on 19 November 2020, which is late for more than 1 year and 8 months. This issue will be dealt with below.
2. The applicant did not request an oral hearing.
3. The Board’s Decision is in Chinese. The applicant has filed her affirmation in support of her application in English. This Form CALL-1 is in English for her convenience.
The applicant
4. The applicant is a national of Vietnam. On 21 March 2016, she sneaked into Hong Kong from China illegally. On 21 April 2016, she surrendered to the Immigration Department. She lodged a non-refoulement with the Immigration Department on the basis that, upon refouled, she will be harmed or killed by her creditor, from whom she had borrowed 300 million VND for her barber shop business. She was unable to repay her loan. Her creditor had threatened to kill her. The facts of her claim are set out in the Board’s Decision. See hyperlink
https://legalref.judiciary.hk/doc/judg/html/vetted/other/en/2020/HCAL002284_2020_files/the_Board's_Decision.pdf.
The Director’s Decision
5. The Director considered the applicant’s claim in relation to the following risks:
a. risk of torture under Part VIIC of the Immigration Ordinance, Cap. 115, (“the Ordinance”) (“Torture risk”);
b. risk of violation of the right to life under Article 2 of Section 8 of the Hong Kong Bill of Rights Ordinance, Cap. 383 (“HKBOR”) (“BOR 2 risk”);
c. risk of torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment (“CIDTP”) under Article 3 of Section 8 of the HKBOR (“BOR 3 risk”); and
d. risk of persecution by reference to the non-refoulement principle under Article 33 of the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees and its 1967 Protocol (“Refugee Convention”) (“Persecution risk”).
6. By way of Notice of Decision dated 26 February 2018 (“the Director’s Decision”), the Director dismissed the applicant’s claim because it was unsubstantiated.
The Board’s Decision
7. The applicant appealed the Director’s Decision to the Board. Having considered the context of the appeal, the Board decided that if was unnecessary to hold an oral hearing for the disposal of the appeal.
8. Having considered the evidence, the Board found the facts below.
(1) State protection will be available if she returns to Vietnam. [41]-[49]
(2) It was a monetary dispute between her creditor and herself, which had nothing to do with torturing. [61]
(3) The chance of being tortured if she returns to Vietnam is very low. [65]
(4) There was no evidence to show that her right to life will be deprived of if she returns to Vietnam. [67]
(5) Internal relocation is viable. [68]-[75]
9. For the above reasons, the Board dismissed the applicant’s appeal and confirmed the Director’s decision.
Application for leave to apply for judicial review of the Board’s Decision
10. The applicant has filed Form 86 dated 19 November 2020 for leave to apply for judicial review of the Board’s Decision.
11. In her affirmation in support of her application, the applicant has raised the following reasons.
(1) The Board had underestimated the injuries and cruel treatment she had suffered in Vietnam.
(2) She was late to file Form 86 for her application because she did not receive the Board’s Decision until 11 November 2020.
DISCUSSION
12. As mentioned in paragraph 1, this application is late. In AW v. Director of Immigration and William Lam CACV 63 of 2015, 3 November 2015, §27 the Court of Appeal held that for extension of time for making the application for leave to apply for judicial review, the Court has to consider (1) the length of delay; (2) the reasons for the delay; (3) the prospect of the intended appeal; and (4) the prejudice to the putative respondent if extension of time was granted. I shall consider the merits of the applicant’s case.
13. The role of this Court is supervisory, meaning that it ensures that the Board complied with the public law requirements in coming to the Board’s Decision on the applicant’s appeal. The Court will not usurp the fact-finding power vested in the Director and the Board. See TK v Michael C Jenkins Esq and Director of Immigration [2013] 1 HKC 526, §40 and Nupur Mst v Director of Immigration [2018] HKCA 524, §14 (1).
14. The Court will bear in mind that the Board’s Decision should be examined with rigorous examination and anxious scrutiny. The Board was entitled to assess the appeal without a hearing under the Ordinance.[2]
15. In Re: Kartini [2019] HKCA 1022, 9 September 2019, the Court of Appeal held:
“13. (1) … …Assessment of evidence and COI materials and 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.”
16. As to her reasons in support of her application under paragraph 11, 11(1) is her bare assertion or personal opinion without any evidence in support. It is not valid to challenge the Board’s Decision. 11(2) will not assist her since her application is devoid of any merit.
17. The applicant has failed to raise any valid ground to challenge the Board’s Decision.
18. The applicant fails to show that she has any realistic prospect of success in her proposed judicial review of the Board’s Decision.
DISPOSITION
19. I refuse to extend time for the applicant to apply for leave to apply for judicial review of the Board’s Decision. Accordingly, I dismiss her application.
Dated the 22nd day of October 2025
| |
(Klein Tse)
for Registrar, High Court
|
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
Notes for the Applicant:
If leave has been granted, the Applicant or the Applicant’s solicitors must:
|
|
|
|
|
a) serve on the respondent and such interested parties as may be directed by the Court the order granting leave and any directions given within 14 days after the leave was granted (Order 53, rule 4A);
b) issue the originating summons within 14 days after the grant of leave and serve it in accordance with Order 53, rule 5; and
c) supply to every other party copies of every affidavit which the Applicant proposes to use at the hearing, including the affidavit in support of the application for leave (Order 53, rule 6(5)).
|
|
Sent to the Applicant on 22/10/2025
Doan Thi Thom
Applicant’s ref. no:
Nil. |
|
Sent to the Putative Respondent / the Putative Respondent’s solicitors / such Putative Interested Parties as may be directed by the Court / the Putative Interested Parties’ solicitors on 22/10/2025
Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office
Putative Respondent’s ref. no.:
USM 10794/18/3/246/V2035
Director of Immigration
Putative Interested Party’s ref. no.:
VRD 397/1/16 (L) (CZ)
Department of Justice,
Senior Assistant Law Officer
(Civil Law)
(Civil Litigation Unit 2) |
Form CALL-1
[1] . Delay in applying for relief (O. 53, r. 4)
(1) An application for leave to apply for judicial review shall be made promptly and in any event within three months from the date when grounds for the application first arose unless the Court considers that there is good reason for extending the period within which the application shall be made. (L.N. 356 of 1988)
(2) Where the relief sought is an order of certiorari in respect of any judgment, order, conviction or other proceeding, the date when grounds for the application first arose shall be taken to be the date of that judgment, order, conviction or proceeding.
[2] Section 12 of Schedule 1A of the Immigration Ordinance, Cap. 115 provides:
“Determination of appeal without a hearing
The Appeal Board may determine an appeal without a hearing if, having regard to the material before it and the nature of the issues raised, the Board is satisfied that the appeal can be justly determined without a hearing.”
|