|
HCAL 1155/2025
[2025] HKCFI 5785
IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST No. 1155 of 2025
|
BETWEEN
|
| |
Nguyen Thi My |
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:
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 28 April 2025 of the Torture Claims Appeal Board (“the Board’s Decision).
2. The applicant did not request an oral hearing.
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 an illegal immigrant as she entered Hong Kong illegally on 8 June 2024. She lodged her non-refoulement claim with the Immigration Department. The Director of Immigration rejected her claim.
5. The applicant’s claim was based on her fear of being harmed or killed by her creditor, from whom she had borrowed 120 million VND, She was unable to pay the interest of the loan. The creditor had threatened to kill her.
6. Details of her claim are set out in the Board’s Decision. See hyperlink https://legalref.judiciary.hk/doc/judg/html/vetted/other/en/2025/HCAL001155_2025_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 Notice of Decision dated 24 December 2024 (“Director’s Decision”), the Director dismissed the applicant’s claim because it was unsubstantiated.
The Board’s Decision
9. The applicant appealed the Director’s Decision to the Board. On 4 March 2025, the Board conducted an oral hearing for her. She had given oral evidence and answered the Board’s questions.
10. Having considered the evidence, the Board made the findings below.
(1) The case did not belong to a loan shark or money-lender. It is a normal case of loan not involving death threat. [32]
(2) Her claim for torture was one belonging to a mere theory or suspicion only. Her danger was not personal or present. [39]
(3) Her business partner, mother or children were not harmed. [39]
(4) The risk of harm if she returns to Vietnam is low. Her claim of torture therefore failed. [40]
(5) BOR 2 risk was not involved in this case. [41]
(6) The case did not meet the requirements under BOR 3 risk. [43]
(7) The risk of persecution was not established. [47]
(8) Internal relocation is viable if she returns to Vietnam. [49]-[51]
(9) State protection is available. [53]
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 May 2025 for leave to apply for judicial review of the Board’s Decision.
13. Insofar as the Board’s Decision is concerned, the applicant has raised the grounds below in support of her application.
(1) Its Decision is wrong.
(2) It had relied too much on the country of origin information without taking into consideration her personal background and experience.
(3) It requested her to respond to questions that she was not in a position to offer any response.
(4) The Board’s Decision is irrational as it should not dismiss her appeal.
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.
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’s reasons under paragraph 13 are her bare assertions without any reason in support. They are not valid to challenge the Board’s Decision. [1]
18. The applicant fails to show that she has any realistic prospect of success in her proposed judicial review of the Board’s Decision.
DISPOSITION
19. I refuse to grant leave to the applicant to apply for judicial review of the Board’s Decision. Accordingly, I dismiss her application.
Dated the 2nd day of December 2025
| |
(M.O. WONG)(Ms)
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 2/12/2025
Nguyen Thi My
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 2/12/2025
Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office
Putative Respondent’s ref. no.:
USM 25363
Director of Immigration
Putative Interested Party’s ref. no.:
VRD/186/1/24 (CZ)
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].”
|