NGUYEN THI DAN v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

HCAL 545/2021

[2025] HKCFI 4044

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST No. 545 of 2021

Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review
NOTIFICATION of the Judge’s decision (Ord. 53 r. 3)

Following;

	consideration of documents only;          or
	consideration of documents and Applicant being present in open court;

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 12 April 2021 of the Torture Claims Appeal Board (“the Board’s Decision).

2.  The applicant requested an oral hearing. She appeared before the Court on 25 July 2025.

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 was arrested by police on 3 May 2020 as an illegal immigrant and in due course, she lodged a non-refoulement claim.

5.  The applicant’s claim was based on her fear of being harmed or killed by a creditor as she failed to repay her debt.

6.  According to the applicant, she borrowed 500 million Vietnamese Dong in April 2015 from the creditor. In April 2018, as the debt could not be repaid, the creditor assaulted the applicant and her daughter. No police report was made and the applicant fled to Hong Kong. Details of her claim are set out at paragraphs 23 to 59 of the Board’s Decision. See hyperlink https://legalref.judiciary.hk/doc/judg/html/vetted/other/en/2021/HCAL000545_2021_files/the_Board's_Decision.pdf.

The Director’s Decision

7.  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”).

8.  By way of the Director’s Decision, the Director dismissed the applicant’s claim because it was unsubstantiated. Besides, state protection will be available and internal relocation is viable, which will mitigate or neutralize the applicable risks.

The Board’s Decision

9.  The applicant appealed the Director’s Decision to the Board. On 10 March 2021, the Board conducted an oral hearing for her with an interpreter.

10.  Having considered the evidence, the Board found that the applicant failed to substantiate that she qualified for non-refoulement protection on any of the applicable grounds [100]. In any event, the Board found that state protection was reasonably available [62-65] and internal relocation reasonable [70-72]. In conclusion, the Board held that the applicant’s claim failed under all applicable grounds.

11.  For the above reasons, the Board dismissed her appeal.

Application for leave to apply for judicial review of the Board’s Decision

12.  The applicant has filed Form 86 dated 19 April 2021 for leave to apply for judicial review of the Board’s Decision.

13.  The applicant has not raised any specific ground to challenge the Board’s Decision.

DISCUSSION

14.  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).

15.  The Court will bear in mind that the Board’s Decisions should be examined with rigorous examination and anxious scrutiny. Before me, the applicant said she had no complaint against the Board’s Decision.

16.  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.”

17.  The applicant fails to show that she has any realistic prospect of success in her proposed judicial review of the Board’s Decision.

DISPOSITION

18.  I refuse to grant leave to the applicant to apply for judicial review of the Board’s Decision. Accordingly, I dismiss her 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