RE LE THI HOI

CACV 112/2024, [2025] HKCA 250

On Appeal From [2024] HKCFI 767

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 112 OF 2024

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO. 2272 OF 2023)

____________________

____________________

____________________

JUDGMENT

____________________

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

1)  The appeal

1.  This is an appeal by the applicant against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge Bruno Chan of 14 March 2024 in which he refused to grant leave to her to apply for judicial review.

2.  This appeal was scheduled to be heard on 7 January 2025.  Despite the directions from the High Court to the applicant dated 1 November 2024 (‘Directions’), the applicant failed to lodge appeal bundles and written submissions by the stipulated time. Accordingly by [4] of the Directions, the hearing of the appeal was vacated and the Court will now deal with this appeal on paper. 

2)  Background

3.  The applicant is a national of Vietnam.  She allegedly entered Hong Kong illegally on 13 December 2020 and was arrested on 15 December 2020.  After she was referred to the Immigration Department for investigation, she raised a non‑refoulement claim[1].

4.  The basis of the applicant’s claim is that she would be harmed or killed by her husband’s creditor for failing to repay his debts[2].

5.  The background facts have been summarized in the decision of the Judge at [2] to [5].

3)  The Director’s Decision

6.  The Director of Immigration (‘the Director’) decided against the applicant’s non-refoulement claim on 21 January 2022.  The decision covered Bill of Rights Article 2 (right to life) risk (‘BOR 2’), Bill of Rights Article 3 (torture/inhuman treatment) risk (‘BOR 3’), as well as other statutory and convention rights against torture and persecution^[3] (‘the Director’s Decision’).

4)  The Board’s Decision

7.  The applicant appealed against the Director’s Decision to the Torture Claims Appeal Board (‘the Board’)[4]. After a hearing held on 23 June 2023, the Board dismissed the applicant’s appeal on 27 October 2023 (‘the Board’s Decision’).

8.  The Board’s finding is summarized in the decision of the Judge at [9] to [10].

5)  Decision of the Judge

9.  The applicant filed her Form 86 and affirmation and set out various grounds for judicial review.  See the decision of the Judge at [11].

10.  The Judge held that the grounds set out by the applicant were broad and vague assertions without any necessary particulars as to how they would apply to the applicant’s case.  Further, even on the applicant’s own factual case it was a private monetary dispute without any official involvement.  There was no error of law or procedural unfairness in the Director or in the Board’s Decisions. See the decision of the Judge at [12] to [16].

6)  Grounds of appeal

11.  The applicant in the notice of appeal stated the following points in summary :

(1)  The Director failed to give proper weight to the presence of state acquiescence;

(2)  The Director, the Board and the Court failed to consider state acquiescence before reaching their decisions;

(3)  The Adjudicator failed to conduct adequate inquiries;

(4)  The Director’s decision was unfair : ‘the Director  included meanings from relevant country of origin information that suited the applicant’s pre-conceived conclusion’;

(5)  The gravity of the applicant’s circumstances has not been properly weighed; and

(6)  Due to her absence, the applicant did not receive correspondence from the Court regarding her hearing date.

7)  Our view

12.  We are of the view that the applicant’s appeal is without merits.  Her grounds of appeal consist of bare allegations without particulars or specifics.  State acquiescence is irrelevant as even on the applicant’s own case it was a private monetary dispute[5].  The applicant provided no reasonably arguable grounds for judicial review.  An appeal against refusal of leave for judicial review is not an occasion for the applicant to regurgitate arguments already advanced.  The Court of Appeal would only reverse the decision of the Judge if it could be demonstrated that there were errors in law, that the Judge failed to take into account relevant matters, or the decision was otherwise plainly wrong : see United Muslim Association of Hong Kong v Yusuf Yu [2018] HKCA 451 at [38] and [39].

13.  It is thus incumbent on the applicant to point out with sufficient particularity the errors allegedly committed by the Judge in assessing the Board’s Decision.  None of the arguments raised by the applicant shows the Judge has made any error of law.  

14.  We see no basis to disturb the Judge’s decision.  Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.