CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST No. 2601 of 2025
|
BETWEEN
|
| |
Nguyen Thi Hoang Nhung acting as guardian of Vu Bao Vy (a minor) |
1st Applicant |
| |
Vu Bao Vy |
2nd 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;
Order by Deputy High Court Judge K.W. Lung:
1. Leave to apply for Judicial Review be refused; and
2. Non-compliance with Order 80, rule 2 of the RHC in these proceedings be treated as a mere irregularity without rendering the 2nd applicant’s application a nullity.
Observations for the Applicant:
THE APPLICATION
1. The 1st applicant, aged 41, is the mother (“the mother”) is acting as the guardian of the 2nd applicant, her daughter (“the daughter”).
2. The daughter applies for leave to apply for judicial review of the Decision dated 12 November 2025 of the Torture Claims Appeal Board (“the Board’s Decision”). The daughter’s application relies upon the facts of the mother.
3. The applicant did not ask for a hearing.
4. 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 applicants’ case
5. The daughter is a national of Vietnam, adopting her mother’s nationality. She relies on her mother’s facts in support of her claim.
6. The mother’s claim was made on the basis that, if refouled, she would be harmed or killed by the creditors Bui Thi Ngoc Anh and Nguyen Van Chinh and their subordinates.
7. The Director of Immigration refused her application for the reason that her claim was not substantiated. She appealed to the Board.
8. Having considered the evidence, the Board found that the mother’s creditors did not have the intention of harming or killing her; that it was a private monetary dispute; that state protection would be available to her and that internal relocation would be a viable option for her. The Board therefore dismissed the mother’s appeal.
9. Details of the facts are set out in the Board’s Decision. See hyperlink. https://legalref.judiciary.hk/doc/judg/html/vetted/other/en/2025/HCAL002601_2025_files/the_Board's_Decision.pdf
10. The mother had applied for an extension of time for filing the notice of appeal to the Court of Appeal. The Court dismissed her application. She appealed to the Court of Appeal against the Court’s decision. The Court of Appeal dismissed her application. She issued a Notice of Motion for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal. By judgment dated 16 May 2025, the Court of Appeal dismissed her application.
The Director’s Decision
11. The Director considered the daughter’s claims 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”).
12. By way of Notice of Decision dated 12 August 2025 (“the Director’s Decision”), the Director assessed the daughter’s claims on all applicable grounds and dismissed her claims on all applicable risks because it was unsubstantiated.
The Board’s Decision
13. The daughter appealed the Director’s Decision to the Board. On 17 October 2025, the Board conducted an oral hearing for her appeal. The mother acted as her guardian.
14. The mother has raised that, if refouled, her daughter may be harmed or killed by her creditors and she will face all sorts of difficulties living in Vietnam because of her tender age.
15. The Board had taken into consideration the decisions of the Court of Appeal in Fabio Arlyn Timogan & Others v Evan Ruth Esq., Adjudicator of the Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office & Another [2020] HKCA 971.
16. Having considered the evidence, the Board made the findings below.
(1) The alleged threats by the creditor were empty threats, made to pressurize the mother to settle the loan. [52]
(2) There are laws and Convention in Vietnam to protection the daughter. [55]‑[57]
(3) It is unlikely that the daughter will be tortured if she returns to Vietnam. [59]‑[61]
(4) For the same reasons, the daughter’s claim on BOR 3 risk, BOR 2 risk and Persecution risk are not supported by evidence. [62]-[67]
(5) Internal relocation is viable. [74]
17. It therefore dismissed the daughter’s appeal and confirmed the Director’s Decision.
Application for leave to apply for judicial review
18. On behalf of the daughter, the mother filed Form 86 on 25 November 2025 for leave to apply for judicial review of the Board’s Decision.
19. The mother has set out the grounds in support of the application against the Board as summarized below.
(1) The Board’s Decision is wrong.
(2) The Board has failed to consider BOR 2 right.
(3) The Board has relied too heavily on the country of origin information without considering the mother’s personal background and experience.
(4) The Board’s conduct was improper as it required her to answer questions that she was not in a position to offer any response.
(5) The Board should have allowed the appeal.
DISCUSSION
20. 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 applicants’ 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 CA, §40 and Nupur Mst v Director of Immigration [2018] HKCA 524, §14 (1).
21. The Court will bear in mind that the Board’s Decision should be examined with rigorous examination and anxious scrutiny.
22. Those reasons under paragraph 19 do not support the application. They are bare allegations or the mother’s opinions without any evidence in support. As such, they are not valid to challenge the Board’s Decision[1].
23. The daughter therefore fails to show that there is any realistic prospect of success in her proposed judicial review.
DISPOSITION
24. I refuse to grant leave to the daughter to apply for judicial review of the Board’s Decision. Accordingly, I dismiss her application.
25. I shall treat non-compliance with Order 80, rule 2 of the RHC in these proceedings as a mere irregularity without rendering the daughter’s application a nullity.
Dated the 28th day of January 2026.
| |
(Allen LEE)
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 28/1/2026
Nguyen Thi Hoang Nhung
acting as guardian of Vu Bao Vy (a minor)
Vu Bao Vy
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 28/1/2026
Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office
Putative Respondent’s ref. no.:
USM 11203/18/4/213/V2050, USM 26964
Director of Immigration
Putative Interested Party’s ref. no.:
VRD 261/1/17 (CZ), RBCL 2876/24
Department of Justice,
Senior Assistant Law Officer
(Civil Law)
(Civil Litigation Unit 2) |
Form CALL-1
[1] The Court of Appeal in Salim Ahmed alias MD Salim [2020] HKCA 244 held:
“20. … … general assertions or propositions of law cannot assist an appellant when he fails to condescend to the requisite particulars related to the facts of his case: Re Mizan Sikder [2019] HKCA 20 and Ibrahim v Simon Russell [2019] HKCA 1327.” See also Re Haider Khalil [2021] HKCA 223 [16].”