HOANG GIA HUAN v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD

HCAL 2326/2020

[2022] HKCFI 1479

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LISTNo 2326 of 2020

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 (counsel for) the Applicant in open court / the Applicant being absent in open court;

1.  extension of time for the application for leave to apply for Judicial Review of the decision of Torture Claims Appeal Board dated 27 June 2019 refused; and

2.  the application for leave to apply for Judicial Review dismissed.

Observations for the Applicant:

1.  The Applicant is a 45-year-old national of Vietnam who entered Hong Kong illegally on 7 June 2015 and surrendered to the Immigration Department on 8 June 2015 when 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 Haiphong City, Vietnam. After leaving school he worked as a fisherman, got married and raised a family with 2 children in his home district.

3.  In 2011 he purchased a new fishing boat by borrowing a loan from a local money-lender with interest charged on the loan payable every month, and in late 2012 he borrowed another loan from the same money-lender for the repairing expenses of his boat.

4.  However, in 2014 he started to have difficulties making his loans repayments, and when he was still unable to make payments after being warned several times, his creditor sent his men to beat him with clubs and sticks that he lost consciousness and was taken to a hospital for medical treatments.

5.  Upon his discharge form hospital, the Applicant fled to Thai Binh Province to take shelter in his uncle’s place, and then to Thanh pho Vung Tau City where he worked in the construction sites, but when he later heard that his creditor was still looking for him everywhere, he felt it was not safe to remain in Vietnam, and so on 25 May 2015 he departed for China, and from there he later sneaked into Hong Kong and raised his non-refoulement claim for protection, for which he had completed a Non-refoulement Claim Form (“NCF”) and attended screening interview before the Immigration Department with legal representation from the Duty Lawyer Service (“DLS”).

6.  While being released on recognizance pending the determination of his claim, the Applicant was arrested by police on 20 November 2017 for drugs trafficking and was subsequently convicted and sentenced to prison for 58 months.            

7.  By a Notice of Decision dated 9 January 2019 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”).

8.  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 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 his creditor to seriously harm or kill the Applicant other than to put pressure on him to repay his debts, and 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 97 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 Vietnam away from his home district in large cities where it would be difficult if not impossible for his creditor to locate him.

9.  On 23 January 2019 the Applicant lodged an appeal to the Torture Claims Appeal Board (“Board”) against the Director’s decision, for which the Board did not hold any oral hearing and dealt with the matter in his absence and on paper, and on 27 June 2019 it dismissed his appeal and also confirmed the Director’s decision.

10.  In its decision the Board accepted the Applicant’s claim of fear of harm from his creditor over his unpaid debts and did not take any issue with his account of events occurred in Vietnam prior to his departure, but found that it was a private monetary dispute between him and his creditor without any official involvement that state/police protection would be available to the Applicant if needed upon his return to Vietnam as well as reasonable internal relocation for him to safely move to other area away from his home district without any risk of being located by his creditor that it concluded that his claim for non-refoulement protection failed on all applicable grounds.

11.  On 27 November 2020 the Applicant filed his Form 86 for leave to apply for judicial review of the Board’s decision, but no ground for seeking relief was given in his Form, and in his supporting affirmation of the same date he merely repeated his claim of fear of being harmed or killed by his creditor if refouled to his home country but without putting forth any proper grounds for his intended challenge, nor did he request any oral hearing for his application.

12.  By then the Applicant was also seriously out of time with his application, as Order 53 Rule 4(1) of the Rules of High Court, Cap 4A requires that an application for leave to apply for judicial review 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.

13.  As the last day of the three-month period for him to file his Form 86 fell on 27 September 2019, the Applicant was therefore 14 months late with his application, and in considering whether to extend time, the court shall have regard to (i) the length of the delay; (ii) the reason for the delay; (iii) the merits of the intended application; and (iv) any prejudice to the putative respondent and to public administration: AW v Director of Immigration [2016] 2 HKC 393.

14.  In the Applicant’s case, a delay of 14 months must be considered as extremely substantial and inordinate, for which he did not provide any explanation in his Form or affirmation, and as the record shows that the decision was sent on the same day to his last reported address without being returned through undelivered post, and while he was then serving his imprisonment for his drug trafficking offence, legal assistances would still be available to him in prison that I am unable to see any good or valid reason for his such serious delay.

15.  As for the merits, if any, of his intended application, as noted above the Applicant has failed to put forth any proper ground for his intended challenge, and in the absence of any error of law or irrationality or procedural unfairness in his process before the Board or in its decision being clearly and properly identified by the Applicant, I do not find any merits in his intended application either.

16.  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.

17.  In the Applicant’s case, the fact is that it has been established by both the Director and the Board in their respective decision that the risk of harm in the Applicant’s claim 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.                

18.  In the premises and 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.

19.  For these reasons I am not satisfied that there is any prospect of success in the Applicant’s intended application for judicial review, and in the absence of any good reason for his serious delay, I refuse to extend time and 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