|
HCAL 784/2026
[2026] HKCFI 2781
IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST NO 784 OF 2026
|
BETWEEN
|
| |
Tran Thi Bich |
Applicant |
| |
and |
|
| |
Director of Immigration |
Putative |
| |
|
Respondent |
Application for leave to apply for judicial review
NOTIFICATION of the Judge’s decision (Order 53, rule 3)
Following:
Order by Deputy High Court Judge Michael WONG:
1. On this court’s own motion, the name of the putative interested party be deleted.
2. The applicant’s application for leave to apply for judicial review be struck out.
Observations for the applicant:
The Leave Application
1. By way of Form 86 dated 21 March 2026 and filed on 21 April 2026, the applicant applied for leave to apply for judicial review (“the Leave Application”) in respect of the decision of the Director of Immigration (“the Director”) dated 4 July 2025 (“the Director’s Decision”).
Amendment
2. The applicant named the Director as both the putative respondent and the putative interested party in Form 86. As the Leave Application is in respect of the Director’s Decision, the Director should just be the putative respondent, not the putative interested party. Hence, the name of the putative interested party is deleted on this court’s own motion.
Procedural history of the applicant’s non-refoulement claim and related application for leave to apply for judicial review
3. The applicant made a non-refoulement claim by way of written signification on 17 February 2025 to the Director. Her claim was assessed on all the applicable grounds under the Unified Screening Mechanism (“the USM”).
4. By way of the Director’s Decision, the Director rejected her non-refoulement claim on all the applicable grounds under the USM.
5. The applicant filed a Notice of Appeal/Petition against the Director’s Decision to the Torture Claims Appeal Board (“the Board”) on 21 July 2025. However, the applicant filed a Notice of Withdrawal to the Board on 11 August 2025 to withdraw the appeal/petition.
6. In response to the applicant’s Notice of Withdrawal, the Board issued a letter dated 12 August 2025 to the applicant to inform her that an appeal/petition against the Director’s Decision was withdrawn once a notice to withdraw the appeal/petition was received by the Board, and since the applicant’s appeal/petition had been withdrawn by her Notice of Withdrawal, no further action would be taken by the Board in respect of her appeal/petition. The Board further informed the applicant that the Director’s Decision remained, her non-refoulement claim was finally determined, and no further notice of appeal/petition was allowed to be filed in relation to the Director’s Decision.
7. The applicant then filed an application for leave to apply for judicial review in respect of the Director’s Decision on 19 September 2025 in HCAL 2118/2025 (“the 2025 Leave Application”).
8. On 17 April 2026, the applicant’s legal representative for another case in Shatin Magistrates’ Court, namely case no STCC 949/2026 (“the STCC case”), sent a letter of even date to this court to enquire about the progress of the 2025 Leave Application. The applicant’s legal representative stated that the applicant’s application for bail was opposed by the Immigration Prosecutor who said that the 2025 Leave Application had already been concluded. The magistrate accepted the verbal representation of the Immigration Prosecutor and refused bail of the applicant, but adjourned the case for two weeks for the applicant to clarify the situation.
9. Before the 2025 Leave Application was dealt with, the applicant filed another leave application in the present proceedings, ie the Leave Application, on 21 April 2026 in respect of the Director’s Decision.
10. The Leave Application is simply a duplicate of the 2025 Leave Application in that the applicant seeks to challenge the same decision, ie the Director’s Decision.
11. Since the applicant had already filed the 2025 Leave Application, the Registrar of High Court issued a letter dated 21 April 2026 to the applicant and directed that the applicant must, within 7 days from the date of the said letter, show cause in writing as to why the Leave Application should not be struck out on the ground of abuse of court process.
12. In response to the Registrar’s said letter, the applicant sent a letter dated 29 April 2026 to this court, in which the applicant referred to the letter from her legal representative in the STCC case and asserted that while awaiting this court’s reply, she asked her friend to help her to file the Leave Application, as the Immigration indicated to her that her bail application at Shatin Court would not be opposed if she made a fresh application for leave for judicial review since they considered the 2025 Leave Application was cancelled/refused/concluded.
Disposal on paper
13. The applicant did not request for an oral hearing of the Leave Application. This court is also satisfied that the Leave Application can be disposed of based on the written materials before this court. Hence, the Leave Application is dealt with on paper.
Grounds for judicial review
14. The applicant is required to identify clearly the grounds for the intended judicial review (see Ho Loy & Another v Director of Environmental Protection, HCAL 21 of 2015, dated 22.12.2016).
15. In Form 86, the applicant stated that the Director underestimated the injury and cruel treatment she had suffered in Vietnam which put her under imminent danger and threat to her life. She believed her claims at least met the criteria for CIDTP[1] and/or BOR 2[2].
16. The applicant stated similar grounds in her supporting affirmation dated 21 March 2026.
Discussion
17. As aforesaid, the present proceedings, ie the Leave Application, is a duplicate of the 2025 Leave Application in that the applicant seeks to challenge the same decision, ie the Director’s Decision.
18. There is simply no reason for this court to allow the applicant to apply for the same relief again in the Leave Application when she had already filed the 2025 Leave Application.
19. Apart from the applicant’s bare allegation, there is no evidence that the Director or the Immigration Prosecutor told her that her bail application at Shatin Court would not be opposed if she made a fresh application for leave to apply for judicial review since they considered the applicant’s 2025 Leave Application was cancelled/refused/concluded.
20. Even taking the applicant’s case to its highest and assuming that the applicant’s said allegation was true, the applicant’s reason for filing a duplicate leave application was simply to facilitate her application for bail. This is plainly an abuse of court process.
21. In the circumstances, this court is of the view that the Leave Application must be struck out to prevent the applicant from abusing the court process and it is not necessary to deal with the applicant’s grounds for judicial review any further.
Conclusion
22. For reasons aforesaid, the Leave Application is struck out.
Dated the 13th day of May 2026
| |
( Gladys 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/Handed to the applicant/the applicant’s solicitors on: 13/05/2026
Applicant’s ref. no:
Nil |
|
Sent/Handed 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: 13/05/2026
Director of Immigration
Putative respondent’s ref. no.:
QA T/C 627/25 (Formerly RBCZ 5000525/25)
Department of Justice,
Senior Assistant Law Officer
(Civil Law)
(Civil Litigation Unit 2) |
Form CALL-1
[1] Cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.
[2] Risk of violation of right to life under Article 2 of section 8 of the Hong Kong Bill of Rights Ordinance, Cap. 383.
|