|
HCAL 1231/2019
[2024] HKCFI 264
IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST No. 1231 of 2019
| BETWEEN |
|
|
| |
Nguyen Thi Nhuong |
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:
Leave to apply for Judicial Review be refused.
Observations for the Applicant:
THE APPLICATION
1. The applicant applies for leave to apply for judicial review of the Decision dated 29 March 2019 of the Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office dismissing the applicant’s appeal against the Director’s Decision as described below (“the Board’s Decision”).
2. The applicant did not ask for a hearing. Pursuant to Order 53, rule 3(3) of the Rules of the High Court, I shall deal with her application on paper.
3. Pursuant to Order 20, rule 8 and Order 53, rule 3(6) of the Rules of the High Court, Form 86 is amended to the effect that the proposed respondent is the Board and the Director of Immigration is the interested party.
The applicant
4. The applicant is a national of Vietnam. She entered Hong Kong illegally and surrendered herself to the Immigration Department on 16 December 2014. On the date of surrender, she lodged a non-refoulement claim. Her claim was made on the basis that, if refouled, she would be harmed or killed by her creditor Truong Van Truong (“Truong”).
5. In brevity, in 2011, she and her ex-husband decided to operate a business and borrowed a loan from Truong. However, after two years, in 2014, their business failed and closed in June or July 2014. Starting in August 2014, the creditor had been chasing for repayment. Initially, they only uttered threats. In October 2014, they assaulted the applicant and her ex-husband. They also threatened to kill the applicant and her family if the loan was not settled within a month. Out of fear, the applicant eventually fled to Hong Kong for protection. Details of her claim are set out at paragraph 6 of the Notice of Decision dated 19 January 2017 by the Director (the “Director’s Decision”).
The Director’s Decision
6. 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”).
7. By way of the Director’s Decision, the Director dismissed the applicant’s claim. In elaboration, the Director found that (i) the low intensity and frequency of past ill-treatments indicated an unlikelihood of future risk of harm [13]-[15]; (ii) state protection would be available to her [16]-[19]; and (iii) internal relocation was a viable option [20]-[25].
The Board’s Decision
8. The applicant appealed the Director’s Decision to the Board. On 29 November 2018, the Board conducted an oral hearing for her appeal, during which she testified [12]-[17].
9. Having considered the evidence, the Board found that Truong did not possess the intention to seriously harm or even kill the applicant [32]; that the applicant’s evidence about the operation of business was in doubt [33]; that the circumstances of the loan were doubtful [34]; that the applicant failed to give a good reason for failing to leave Vietnam as soon as possible [35]; that there was no evidence that Truong was related to the authority [36]; that it was bare assertion that the police would not assist her [37]; that there was no basis that Truong could locate her everywhere if refouled [38]; and that another basis for her unwillingness to return to Vietnam was that she was married to a Swedish national who was applying for visa for her to stay in Sweden [39]. In any event, internal relocation was a viable option [50]-[54].
10. For the above reasons, the Board rejected the applicant’s claim and dismissed her appeal.
Application for leave to apply for judicial review of the Board’s Decision
11. The applicant has filed Form 86 dated 8 May 2019 for leave to apply for judicial review of the Board’s Decision.
12. In her affirmation in support of her application, the applicant had only attached a copy of the Board’s Decision, but did not set out any specific ground.
DISCUSSION
13. The role of this Court is supervisory, meaning that it ensures that the Board complied with the public law requirements in coming to its 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.
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. The Board had, for the reasons given in paragraph 9, supra, rejected her evidence and her claim that she has real risk of harm or being killed upon her return to Indonesia.
17. There is no valid ground from the applicant 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.
CONCLUSION
19. I refuse to grant leave for the applicant to apply for judicial review of the Board’s Decision. Accordingly, I dismiss her application.
Dated 19th day of January 2024
| |
( Allen LEE )
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 19/1/2024
Nguyen Thi Nhuong
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 19/1/2024
Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office
Putative Respondent’s ref. no.:
USM 6050/17/2/49/V921
Director of Immigration
Putative Interested Party’s ref. no.: QA T/C 2739/16 (Formerly RBCZ 10052/15)
Department of Justice,
Senior Assistant Law Officer
(Civil Law)
(Civil Litigation Unit 2)
|
Form CALL-1
|