Case Details

Citation

DO VAN QUANG v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE, HCAL 1192/2025

Case Number

HCAL 1192/2025

Court

Court of First Instance

(CFI)

Decision Date

7 January 2026

Parties

Applicant(s):

Do Van Quang

Respondent(s):

Torture Claims Appeal Board/ Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office

Judges

K.W. Lung

DO VAN QUANG v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

[2026] HKCFI 45

Court of First Instance7 January 2026

Judges:K.W. Lung

HCAL1192/2025 DO VAN QUANG v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

HCAL 1192/2025

[2026] HKCFI 45

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST No. 1192 of 2025

BETWEEN
	Do Van Quang	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;

consideration of documents only; or

consideration of documents and Applicant being absent in open court;

Order by Deputy High Court Judge K.W. Lung:

Leave to apply for Judicial Review be refused.

Observations for the Applicant:

THE BACKGROUND

1. The applicant is an illegal immigrant and had made non-refoulement claim to the Director of Immigration (“the Director”). He was legally represented by the Duty Lawyers Scheme.

2. The Director asked the applicant to return a completed Non-refoulement Claim Form (NCF) within 28 days. On 1 November 2016, his duty lawyer informed the Director that he wanted to withdraw his claim.

3. On 3 November 2016, the Director confirmed his withdrawal.

4. On 6 November 2017, the applicant requested re-opening of his claim.

5. The Director required him to provide sufficient information and evidence in writing by 15 November 2017.

6. The applicant did not provide the information as required.

The Director’s Decision

7. By Notice of Decision dated 23 November 2017 (“the Director’s Decision”), the Director rejected his request.

8. After more than 7 years, on 25 February 2025, the applicant filed the Notice of Appeal with the Torture Claims Appeal Board; (“the Board”) against the Director’s Decision. The Board allowed extension of time and heard his appeal on 11 March 2025.

9. In gist, the applicant submitted that it was unfair and unreasonable for the Director to reject his request to re-open his claim and he will be harmed or killed if he is sent back to Vietnam.

The Board’s Decision

10. The Board applied to his case section 37ZE(2) of the Immigration Ordinance, Cap. 115 (“the Ordinance”), which provides:

“… a torture claim that has been withdrawn under subsection (1) may be re‑opened if the person who made the claim provides sufficient evidence in writing to satisfy an immigration officer that —

(a) since the withdrawal, there has been a change of circumstances that —

(i) could not reasonably have been foreseen by the person when the person gave the notification under subsection (1); and

(ii) when taken together with the material previously submitted for the claim, could increase the prospect of success of the claim; or

(b) by reason of special circumstances, it would be unjust not to re-open the claim.”

11. The Board found that the applicant has failed to satisfy with the requirement of the above section. By Decision dated 14 May 2025 (“the Board’s Decision”), the Board dismissed his appeal and affirmed the Director’s Decision.

Form 86 and supporting evidence

12. The applicant filed Form 86 dated 22 May 2025 for leave to apply for judicial review of the Board’s Decision.

13. In support of his application, the applicant has raised the grounds below to challenge the Board’s Decision.

(1)  The adjudicator’s decisions are wrong.

(2)  The Board failed to take into account of his right to life.

(3)  The adjudicator had placed too much reliance on the country of origin information without considering his personal experience and background.

(4)  The adjudicator was unfair for demanding response from him where he was not in a position to offer any response.

(5)  The adjudicator’s decisions are irrational.

Discussion

14. The Court will bear in mind that the Board’s Decision should be examined with rigorous examination and anxious scrutiny.

15. The applicant did not dispute the facts above. He has therefore failed to comply with section 37ZE(2) of the Ordinance, without any good reasons.

16. Those grounds under Paragraph 13 are irrelevant to this case.

17. In my view, the Board was clearly right to dismiss his appeal.

18. The applicant fails to show that he has any realistic prospect of success in his proposed judicial review of the Board’s Decision.

Conclusion

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

Dated the 7^th day of January 2026

(Allen LEE)(Mr)
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 7/1/2026 Do Van Quang 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 7/1/2026 Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office Putative Respondent’s ref. no.: USM 25708 Director of Immigration Putative Interested Party’s ref. no.: VRD/761/15 (CZ) Department of Justice, Senior Assistant Law Officer (Civil Law) (Civil Litigation Unit 2)

DO VAN QUANG v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

Citation

Court

Procedural posture

Issues

Holdings

Legal principles

Disposition

Key citations