|
HCAL 1021/2021
[2026] HKCFI 2370
IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST NO 1021 OF 2021
|
BETWEEN
|
| |
Bui Minh Man |
Applicant |
| |
and |
|
| |
Torture Claims Appeal Board |
Putative |
| |
|
Respondent |
| |
and |
|
| |
Director of Immigration |
Putative |
| |
|
Interested Party |
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 respondent be amended to “Torture Claims Appeal Board”, and “Director of Immigration” be added as the putative interested party.
2. The applicant’s application for leave to apply for judicial review be dismissed.
Observations for the applicant:
The Leave Application
1. By way of Form 86 dated and filed on 20 July 2021, the applicant applied for leave to apply for judicial review (“the Leave Application”) in respect of the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board (“the Board”) dated 14 July 2021 (“the Board’s Decision”). The Board’s Decision can be viewed in the following hyperlink:-
https://legalref.judiciary.hk/doc/judg/html/vetted/other/en/2021/HCAL001021_2021_files/the_Board's_Decision.pdf
2. The Board found that the applicant’s claims for non-refoulement protection were not made out on any of the applicable grounds under the Unified Screening Mechanism (“the USM”). Accordingly, the Board dismissed the applicant’s appeal/petition against the decision of the Director of Immigration (“the Director”) dated 21 May 2020 and confirmed the same, which rejected the applicant’s non-refoulement claim.
Amendments
3. The applicant named the Board and the Director as the putative respondents and did not name any putative interested party in Form 86.
4. In fact, only the Board should be named as the putative respondent and the Director should be named as the putative interested party.
5. Thus, this court makes an order on its own motion to amend the name of the putative respondent to “Torture Claims Appeal Board”, and to add “Director of Immigration” as the putative interested party.
The applicant’s case
6. It is not necessary for this court to repeat the details of the applicant’s case here as the same were set out in the Board’s Decision, which can be viewed in the hyperlink above.
7. In sum, the applicant claimed for non-refoulement protection because if refouled to Vietnam, he would be harmed or even killed by a loan shark named Nguyen Van Thuy (“Thuy”) and Thuy’s gangsters due to his inability to repay a huge loan borrowed from Thuy.
Disposal on paper
8. 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
9. 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).
10. The applicant did not advance any ground for his intended judicial review in Form 86, nor in his supporting affirmation dated 20 July 2021. In his affirmation, he merely reiterated the background of his non-refoulement claim, namely that he could not return to Vietnam because he would face risk of being killed or tortured by his creditor and his creditor’s gangsters since he could not repay the loan.
Discussion
11. First of all, the applicant’s alleged danger from his creditor had been duly assessed but rejected by the Board. If the applicant intends to challenge the Board’s finding of facts, it is not permissible in an application for judicial review.
12. The role of the court in judicial review is not to re-assess the non-refoulement claims afresh. The primary decision-makers in a claim for non-refoulement are the Director and the Board. They alone assess the evidence and find facts including those relating to the matters allegedly giving rise to the non-refoulement claim, risk of harm, availability of state protection and viability of internal relocation. The court will scrutinize the Board’s decision and intervene by way of judicial review only for errors of law, procedural unfairness, or irrationality (see Nupur Mst v Director of Immigration [2018] HKCA 524).
13. Thus, despite the fact that the applicant did not advance any valid ground for the intended judicial review, this court will scrutinize the Board’s Decision for any errors of law, procedural unfairness, or irrationality as aforesaid.
14. As can be seen from the Board’s Decision, the Board had questioned the applicant extensively to try to understand his claims better and to assess his credibility and his accounts of the events leading to his claim for non-refoulement protection. After due consideration of the applicant’s replies, the Board had no doubt that the applicant had invented his account of having borrowed a loan and being pursued by a loan shark and his gangsters. The applicant’s account was rejected in its entirety.
15. Despite that the applicant’s account was rejected, the Board did go on to assess the applicant’s claim for non-refoulement protection on the assumption that the applicant’s account was accepted. However, the Board still found that the applicant failed to substantiate a case for non-refoulement protection.
16. Even on the applicant’s own account, he was not seriously hurt by Thuy. The Board found that Thuy had no real intention to seriously harm or otherwise kill the applicant. The applicant’s fear of returning to Vietnam arose solely from his inability to repay a loan, which was a personal financial dispute. There was no evidence of state acquiescence in his dispute with Thuy. The applicant’s fear from Thuy was not for any Convention reasons.
17. Moreover, the Board found from country of origin information (“COI”) that although corruption was common in all levels of the police force, the Vietnamese government had undergone reforms to combat police corruption and improve their efficiency. The Board considered that state protection would be available to the applicant upon refoulement to Vietnam.
18. The Board also found that there should be viable options for the applicant to settle at an alternative place in Vietnam. There was no evidence to show that Thuy was powerful, influential and resourceful enough to locate the applicant had he moved to stay and live in provinces or cities other than his own. The applicant had 10 years of education and 29 years of work experience including running his own business. The Board considered that it was not unreasonable or unduly harsh for the applicant to relocate to another place in Vietnam to avoid any perceived threat from his creditor upon his return to Vietnam.
19. Thus, the Board concluded that, even if the applicant’s account was accepted, his claim for non-refoulement protection still failed on all the applicable grounds under the USM.
20. The finding of facts relating to a non-refoulement claim, including the assessment of evidence, COI and risk of harm, was solely within the ambit of the Board in dealing with the applicant’s appeal/petition. This court finds nothing wrong or unreasonable in the way the Board reached its decision.
21. Having rigorously examined the Board’s Decision and the evidence with anxious scrutiny, this court is satisfied that the Board had correctly set out the law and key legal principles relating to the applicable grounds under the USM, the burden of proof and the standard of proof. The Board also correctly identified the issues and observed a very high standard of fairness. This court could detect no errors of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the Board’s Decision. The Board’s Decision does satisfy the enhanced Wednesbury test, ie it is not Wednesbury unreasonable or irrational for the Board to reach its decision.
22. As held by the Court of Final Appeal in Po Fun Chan v Winnie Cheung (2007) 10 HKCFAR 676, for the court to grant leave to apply for judicial review, the claim has to be a reasonably arguable claim which enjoys realistic prospects of success. It is the view of this court that the applicant has failed to establish such a claim and hence leave must be refused.
Conclusion
23. For reasons aforesaid, the Leave Application is dismissed.
Dated the 29th day of April 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 his 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: 29/04/2026
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: 29/04/2026
Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office
Putative respondent’s ref. no.:
USM 16973/20/6/6/V2487
Director of Immigration
Putative interested party’s ref. no.:
QA T/C 46/20 (Formerly RBCZ 10001/20)
Department of Justice,
Senior Assistant Law Officer
(Civil Law)
(Civil Litigation Unit 2) |
Form CALL-1
|