|
CACV 433/2024, [2025] HKCA 209
On Appeal From [2024] HKCFI 2717
IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
COURT OF APPEAL
CIVIL APPEAL NO 433 OF 2024
(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 551 OF 2023)
________________________
|
BETWEEN
|
| |
HOANG THI LIEN |
Applicant |
| |
and |
|
| |
TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / |
Putative |
| |
NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS |
Respondent |
| |
PETITION OFFICE |
|
| |
and |
|
| |
DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION |
Putative |
| |
|
Interested Party |
_____________________
| Before: |
Hon G Lam and Chow JJA in Court |
| Date of Judgment: |
13 March 2025 |
_______________
J U D G M E N T
_______________
Hon Chow JA (giving the Judgment of the Court):
1. This is the Applicant’s appeal against the order of Deputy High Court Judge To (“the Judge”) dated 10 October 2024 (“the Order”) refusing to grant leave to apply for judicial review of the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office (“the Board”) dated 30 March 2023, whereby the Board dismissed the Applicant’s appeal against the decision of the Director of Immigration (“the Director”) dated 19 May 2022.
BACKGROUND
2. The Applicant is a national of Vietnam. She claimed to have entered Hong Kong illegally on 2 November 2021. She was arrested by the police on 7 March 2022. On 28 March 2022, she lodged a non-refoulement claim on the basis that, if refouled, she would be harmed or killed by a creditor (Hoang Van Hai) for being unable to repay a loan owed by her husband to the creditor. Details of the Applicant’s claim have been summarised by the Judge at §§5-12 of the CALL-1 Form.
3. By a Notice of Decision dated 19 May 2022, the Director dismissed the Applicant’s non-refoulement claim with reference to all applicable risks: BOR 2 risk[1], BOR 3 risk[2], persecution risk[3], and risk of torture[4].
4. The Applicant appealed the Director’s decision to the Board. On 30 March 2023, the Board dismissed the Applicant’s appeal, and confirmed the Director’s decision (“the Board’s Decision”). The Board’s reasons for its decision were summarised by the Judge at §§13-21 of the CALL-1 Form, as follows:
“[13] 申請人在上訴聆訊中作供。上訴委員會認為她言詞閃縮，逃避提問，她的口供與她的免遺返聲請表格的證供互相矛盾，不信納她的證供。其一，在聲請表格中，她說在遇襲前，丈夫叫她在天橋下等候，而他走上公路看看巴士是否已到了站；但在作供時，她否認曾與丈夫分開，只是她尾隨丈夫行。其二，在聲請表格中，她說與丈夫相距10米時，見到丈夫被襲；但在作供時，她三度說記不起。其三，在聲請表格中，她說在遇襲後約一小時登上巴土致電丈夫的弟弟，丈夫的弟弟並具體地陳述關於公安與驗屍官帶同丈夫的遺體到他的家中調查及作驗屍報告。上訴委員會認為公安要在施襲後兩小時內找到丈夫的弟弟並完成上述一連串的調查是十分緊迫，擬向申請人求證她登上巴士後有沒有致電丈夫的弟弟。但她卻多次回覆她記不得。最終，她說只打過一次電話給他，但記不起在何時、何處和該對話的內容。她的表現致使上訴委員會質疑她的可信性，不能依重她的證供。
[14] 此外，驗屍報告稱申請人的丈夫因車禍去世亦與她的案情出現嚴重分歧。申請人的解釋是，這份報告是驗屍官收到賄款後才發出的。上訴委員會認為申請人對驗屍官的指控沒有實質證據所支持，屬她個人的猜測，不接納她的說法。
[15] 總結而言，上訴委員會不信納申請人的證供，不相信她返回越南會有生命危險。基於這事實裁定，上訴委員會駁回她的上訴。此外，上訴委員會亦假定她的案情屬實，並基於她所指稱的案情，評估她的免遺返聲請。但基於以下的理由，亦裁定她沒有資格得到免遣返保護。
[16] 就遭受迫害風險而言，上訴委員會認為申請人與債主的紛爭只屬私人錢債糾紛，不屬於1951年《關於難民地位的公約》所保護的五項理由的範圍內。
[17] 就酷刑風險而言，上訴委員會認為，雖然債主屬於犯罪集團，申請人指稱他與越南公職人員或以官員有關連，只屬她個人的猜測，她沒有實質證據支持她的說法。
[18] 上訴委員會認為，除債主所造成的風險外，案中沒有任何證據顯示，若申請人被遣返越南，《人權法案》第二款所賦予她的生存權利會被無理剝奪。
[19] 基於上述的事實裁定及驗屍報告，上訴委員會認為申請人未能證明，她有實質理由相信，若被遣返越南，她會面對《人權法案》第三款所指的酷刑、或遭受殘忍、不人道或侮辱之處遇或懲罰。
[20] 此外，基於具權威及可信的原居國資料，上訴委員會認為若申請人返回越南，她可以遷徙到越南其他地區避開債主對她構成的風險。
[21] 因此，上訴委員會裁定，申請人的聲請不屬於統一審核機制下的四個適用的理由內的任何一個，沒有資格得到免遣返保護，而駁回她的上訴。”
THE JUDGE’S DECISION
5. On 6 April 2023, the Applicant filed a Form 86 to apply for leave to apply for judicial review of the Board’s Decision. No ground of review was given in the Form 86. In her supporting affirmation of the same date, the Applicant repeated the factual basis of her claim.
6. On 10 October 2024, the Judge gave his decision refusing to grant leave to apply for judicial review, for the following reasons:
“[24] 申請人投訴的實質是，她不同意上訴委員會不接納她是因害怕被追債及殺害而必須逃離越南，並裁定她的免遣返申請欠缺事實基礎，而拒絕她的申請。這是上訴委員會的事實裁定，是它獨有的權限。若它的決定不涉及法律錯誤、程序不公平、或不合理的情況，法庭絕對不會干預。
[25] 經認真及仔細審核上訴委員會的決定、所有文件、證據及相關的法律原則後，法庭確認，上訴委員會正確地列舉了統一審核機制下四個適用的免遣返申請理由，正確地引用了適用的法律原則，並將這些原則正確地適用於它所裁定的事實，包括舉證標準和舉證責任，並引用了相關案例作為支援。上訴委員會正確地指出該聲請所涉及的事實和法律問題。它清楚地理解，其職責是重新考慮申請人的申請理據，而不是單決定是否維持或駁回處長在其通知書內的決定。
[26] 申請人的聲請是基於她稱欠下的債務，以及高利貸債主對她的威脅，並且殺害了她的丈夫。上訴委員會的基本裁定是，不接納她的案情。因此，她未能證明她所依據的免遺返聲請的事實基楚，不能得到免遺返保護。這裁定是基於上訴委員會，經仔細權衡了證據，而作的事實與法律裁定。除非該決定涉及法律錯誤、程序不公平、或不合理的情況，否則法庭絕對不能干預。
[27] 雖然上訴委員會不接納她的案情，但亦基於她所指稱的案情評估她的聲請。它裁定根據她的案情，申請人的聲請亦不符合統一審核機制下任何一個適用的申請理由，沒有資格享有免遣返保護。這裁定也是上訴委員會的事實與法律裁定。就事實裁定而言，上訴委員會採納她所指稱的案情，申請人不可能對這事實裁定不滿。上訴委員會將相關的法律原則適用於這些事實上，而裁定她沒有資格享有免遣返保護。這是法律裁定。
[28] 經認真及仔細審查上訴委員會的決定書、文件、證據及相關的法律原則後，法庭確定上訴委員會的決定完全沒有犯上法律錯誤，它的決定不存在可被視為程序不公平或「溫斯伯里」不合理的情況（即按照Wednesbury一案所訂標準，原審法官只須審查案中證據，從而決定是否根據這些證據，一個合理的法官，對自己作出恰當的法律指引後，不可能會作出的決定）。申請人在本案沒有合理可爭辯的論據，她的司法覆核申請沒有合理成功機會。”
THIS APPEAL
7. In her Notice of Appeal filed on 16 October 2024, the Applicant repeated her claim that her life would be seriously threatened, and she would probably die if she returned to Vietnam, because most creditors and gangsters in Vietnam were cruel and violent, and they disregarded the law and were willing to kill people to satisfy their anger and ferocity. She disagreed with the Director’s assessment that she could move to another location in Vietnam to avoid her husband’s creditor for various reasons, and alleged that the Immigration Department did not consider her human rights under various instruments including the Basic Law and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
8. In her affirmation of the same date, the Applicant stated that “there is a good ground of appeal that was not necessarily considered at the stage of applying for leave for judicial review”, but she failed to identify what that ground might be.
9. Also on 16 October 2024, the Applicant consented to her appeal being disposed of on paper by the Court without an oral hearing.
10. The Applicant has failed to lodge any written submissions in support of her appeal contrary to the directions given by the Registrar of Civil Appeals on 16 October 2024.
DISCUSSION
11. In an appeal against refusal of leave to apply for judicial review in non-refoulement cases, the Court of Appeal would only examine the decision of the judge in light of the grounds advanced by the applicant. If no viable ground is put forward to reverse the judge’s decision, the appeal should be dismissed. The Court of Appeal’s role is not to examine the Board’s decision afresh as if it was a fresh application for judicial review (see Nupur Mst v Director of Immigration [2018] HKCA 524, at §14(6)).
12. Further, the assessment of evidence, country of origin information, 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: Re Kartini [2019] HKCA 1022. No such error of law or procedural unfairness or irrationality in the decision of the Board is shown in the present case.
13. The Applicant has failed to identify or show any error in the Judge’s decision refusing to grant leave to apply for judicial review, or raise any viable ground of appeal against the Order.
14. The Applicant’s appeal has no merit, and is dismissed.
15. This judgment is written in English although the Judge’s decision below was written in Chinese, because the Applicant’s Notice of Appeal and affirmation are both written in English. If required, the Applicant may make an appointment with the clerk to this Court at a mutually convenient time for an oral interpretation of this judgment in the Applicant’s preferred language in the Court’s premises.
(Godfrey Lam)
Justice of Appeal
|
(Anderson Chow)
Justice of Appeal
|
The Applicant, acting in person
[1] This refers to the risk of being arbitrarily deprived of her life under Article 2 of section 8 of the Hong Kong Bill of Rights Ordinance, Cap 383.
[2] This refers to the risk of torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment under Article 3 of section 8 of the Hong Kong Bill of Rights Ordinance, Cap 383.
[3] This refers to the risk of persecution with reference to the non‑refoulement principle under Article 33 of the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees.
[4] This refers to the risk of torture under Part VIIC of the Immigration Ordinance, Cap 115.
|