Re v. Van Hieu

CACV 284/2022

[2022] HKCA 1395

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 284 OF 2022

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 261 OF 2019)

____________

____________

Before:  Hon G Lam and Chow JJA in Court

Date of Judgment:  29 September 2022

_________________

J U D G M E N T

_________________

Hon G Lam JA (giving the Judgment of the Court):

Introduction

1.This is an appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge To (“Judge”) given on 15 July 2022[1] refusing to grant leave to the applicant to apply for judicial review against the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board/adjudicator of the Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office (“Board”) dated 24 January 2019. In that decision, the Board upheld the decision of the Director of Immigration (“Director”) dated 22 June 2018 rejecting the applicant’s non-refoulement claim.

2.Although the Judge’s decision was given in Chinese, the applicant has filed his Notice of Appeal as well as an affirmation in this court in English, and the Board’s decision was also in English. We accordingly issue this judgment in English. The applicant will nevertheless be notified (in Chinese) that if he has any difficulty in understanding this judgment, it can be interpreted to him by the court’s interpretation service.

Background

3.The applicant is a Vietnamese national, born in 1999. He claims to have entered Hong Kong illegally on 17 November 2016. On 24 November 2016, he surrendered himself to the Immigration Department, and raised his non-refoulement claim on the same date.

4.The applicant’s claim was based on the fear that, since he was unable to inform his mother’s creditors of her whereabouts, they would kill or harm him. The factual background was summarized at paragraphs 4 to 18 of the Board’s decision. The applicant’s mother is actually in Hong Kong and also claiming non-refoulement protection.

5.By notice of decision dated 22 June 2018, the Director assessed the applicant’s claim on all the applicable grounds and determined it against her. The applicable grounds are BOR 3 risk,[2] persecution risk,[3] torture risk[4] and BOR 2 risk.[5]

6.The applicant appealed to the Board against the Director’s decision. An oral hearing was held on 15 November 2018, during which the applicant gave oral testimony and answered questions from the Board. The Board found that there were a number of implausible or inconsistent aspects of the applicant’s evidence, which seriously undermined its reliability. On the totality of the evidence, the Board did not accept that the applicant came to Hong Kong because of the alleged threat, but rather because of his desire to re-unite with his mother. The Board found the applicant dishonest and unreliable, and that he was not a genuine claimant. The Board found in any event that there were many options for the applicant to relocate within Vietnam. In conclusion, the Board dismissed the appeal in its decision of 24 January 2019.

Decision of the court below

7.On 28 January 2019, the applicant sought leave from the Court of First Instance to apply for judicial review against the Board’s decision. In his supporting affirmation, he raised three grounds for judicial review: (1) that the Board’s decision was biased; (2) that the Board had relied on information that did not accord with the situation in Vietnam; and (3) that the Board’s decision was based on wrong consideration.

8.Following consideration of the documents only, on 15 July 2022 the Judge refused to grant leave to apply for judicial review. The detailed reasons were set out at [21] – [34] of the Form CALL-1 as follows:

“ 理由（一）：上訴委員會的決定書帶有偏見

21. 申請人投訴上訴委員會在決定書內多處指稱他沒有給予實質證據而否定他的證供。他的投訴實質是他不同意上訴委員會不相信他是因害怕被迫害而必須逃離越南。他引述決定書第34段支持他的指控。在該段，上訴委員會說：

「 34.  Without a set of reasonably plausible facts, there is no factual basis on which the Board can accept that the Appellant was or is subjected to any risk of harm in his country. His claim failed for lack of a plausible case for proof of substantial risk of torture. For the same reason, his claim on each of the other grounds of CIDTP, BOR 2 and persecution also failed. For the sake of completeness, I will deal with the facts of his claim under each applicable ground in detail below.」

隨後上訴委員會便就這三項免遣返申請理據逐一分析。

22. 上訴委員會在決定書第20至30段引述了適用於酷刑風險的法律原則，然後在第35至38段處理了申請人基於酷刑風險的理據。它裁定即使根據申請人的案情，他只被黑社會人士掌摑了一、兩次，他從沒有受到嚴重身體上或精神上的傷害。申請人也沒有提出證據證明他曾接受因恐懼導致的精神科治療。從申請人所受到的掌摑，上訴委員會裁定他遭受的傷害未能達至最起碼的嚴重程度，繼而推定他遭受迫害的風險不高。

23. 在決定書第39至44段，基於申請人的證據，上訴委員會裁定債主和他委託的黑社會人士並非以官方身份或獲得官方鼓勵迫害申請人。申請人也沒有任何證據證明他們的行為與越南政府有關連。

24. 在決定書第45至47段，基於具權威及可信的原居國資料，上訴委員會認為越南政府能夠給予申請人合理保護，而申請人亦沒有提出實質證據證明公安不會保護他的安全。越南政府能給予的保護進一步減低了申請人可能遭受迫害的風險。這些原居國資料推翻了申請人指稱越南政府不能保護他的安全外的指稱。

25. 申請人又質疑上訴委員會在決定書第33段對他可信性的評估。在該段上訴委員會指出申請人 證據的矛盾。這些矛盾是無可爭議的。他解釋這些矛盾是出於他年紀細少及事發時間久遠。其實事發時他是17歲的青少年，記憶力強；事件僅發生於兩年前，若然屬實，他應有深刻印象，記憶如新。在作出對他可信性的評估時，上訴委員會當然會考慮過總體證據、所有環境、及一切情況，包括申請人的年紀及作供或填寫免遣返聲請表格距離事發的時間等。這可信性的評估是一項上訴委員會獨有的事實裁定。

26. 基於上述理由，上訴委員會裁定申請人未能成功證明他可獲得因酷刑風險的保護。以上的裁定全部是基於申請人的證據，及申請人未能推翻的原居國資料。這裁定合符客觀標準，沒有偏見。這裁定是上訴委員會獨有的事實裁定，除涉及法律論點錯誤、程序不公、或不合理外，審理司法覆核的法庭是不會干預的。

理由（二）：上訴委員會依賴不符裁南情況的資料

27. 申請人的三個理由均圍繞著上訴委員會在該決定書第45至第47段，對原居國資料的考慮與越南的實質情況的裁定。他說上訴委員會所倚賴的資料打來自第三者，是不正確及未經證實。他引述以下兩份報導支持他的指控。

28. 他稱根據GAN Business Anti Corruption Portal於2017年9月的報導，越南司法機構如法庭及法官都有嚴重公污間題。他沒有提供有關文憲，該報導的內容及真實性無法稽核。不過，上訴委員會知悉越南貪污的嚴重性。它亦引述了美國國務務院於同年出版的Country Report on Human Right Practices 2017 。該報告亦指出越南貪污的嚴重性，但亦指出越南當局亦債極提升公安的問責制與效率。該報告也認為，一般而言，越南公安有效地維持公共秩序與安全。美國國務務院出版的報告是一份極具權威及可信性的報告。上訴委員會給予這報告較大比重是合理的。這報告亦得到同時的新聞報導的支持。從這些新聞報導可見，越南政府積極檢舉貪官污吏及嚴打高利貸款與相關暴力行為。這些正面資訊證明越南的實況正在改善中。美國國務務院的報告比申請人倚賴GAN Business Anti Corruption Portal的陳述效平衡、全面及可靠。

29. 申請人引述Sina新聞中心於2006年6月23日的報導稱，越南總理及越南共產黨最高級官員潘文凱，因越南各級官員，甚至高級官員貪污嚴重而引咎辭職。該報導支持他對越南政府嚴重貪腐及濫權等的負面指控。他認為這報導證明上訴委員會所倚賴的資料不正確。但該報導亦同時反映了越南政府對反貪腐而作的努力及決心。政府的最高領導人引咎辭職，讓新的領導人帶領新的管治團隊，擺脫舊習，向改革之道路邁進。現在來看，該報導己是16年前的舊聞。上訴委員會所依據的資料是出於2013至2017年，更為反映越南的近況。

30. 上訴委員會關於越南的實質情況的裁定是事實的裁定，是上訴委員會獨有的權限。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。上訴委員會的裁定是基於具權威及可信性的資料；例如國際刑警網站、美國國務院出版的Country Report on Human Right Practices of Vietnam 2017；英國內政部出版的Country of Origin Information Report；及其他新聞報導。有些資料支持申請人對越南政府的腐敗及貪污的指稱，也有支持越南政府的反貪腐而作的努力與成果。上訴委員會的裁定是經過仔細權衡多方面的證據而作，沒有什麼不洽當或不穩妥之處。衡量證據、選擇可信的證據、拒納不可信的證據，是上訴委員會的責任。在履行這責任時，除涉及法律錯誤、程序不公平、或不合理的情況外，上訴委員會不可以被批評為選擇性採納證據。

理由（三）：上訴委員會的決定是基於錯誤的考慮

31. 這申請理由只是反覆重新上述的理由，沒有新意。

總結

32. 申請人的投訴全部是針對上訴委員會的事實裁定。實質上，他不同意上訴委員會裁定他所畏懼的傷害與風險不屬於統一審核機制下四個適用的免遣返申請理由所保障的風險，並因而拒絕他的免遣返申請。申請人的聲請是基於他指稱母親欠下的債務，致使他受到債主與他所安託黑社會人土對他作出的威脅。上訴委員會是基於他所指稱案情，及具權威及可信的原居國資料，並依據適用於統一審核機制下四個適用的免遣返申請理由的法律原則作出裁定。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。

33. 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中書內的決定。

34. 經認真及仔細審查上訴委員會的裁決書、相關的文件及證據後，法庭確定上訴委員會的決定完全沒有犯上絲毫法律錯誤，它的決定不存在可被視為程序不公平或「溫斯伯里」不合理的況（即按照Wednesbury一案所訂標準，原審法官祇須審查案中證據，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，他的司法覆核申請沒有合理成功機會。”

Appeal to this Court

9.On 25 July 2022, the applicant filed his Notice of Appeal against the Judge’s decision, in which he stated the gravity of his circumstances had not been weighed or realised by the Board. He stated that it was completely infeasible for him to live in another location in Vietnam. He said his health was not good, which might disadvantage him in the labour market. He said that with the nationwide network of gangsters with clandestine connections with people in the government and police, it would be quite possible for the creditor to find out his new residence in Vietnam. He said that gangsters in Vietnam are cruel and violent and are willing to kill people to satisfy their anger and ferocity. In the accompanying affirmation, the applicant asserted there was a good ground of appeal not necessarily considered at the stage of applying for leave for judicial review, but he did not specify what it was.

10.The applicant consented for his appeal to be disposed of on the papers without an oral hearing, but he did not lodge any written submissions in accordance with the direction of the Registrar of Civil Appeals. We accordingly determine the appeal on the basis of the written materials available.

Discussion

11.In assessing the merit of the appeal, we shall have regard to the legal principles which this Court has adopted in dealing with appeals in non-refoulement cases: see Nupur Mst v Director of Immigration [2018] HKCA 524 at [14]. In particular, the role of the Court in a judicial review is not to provide a further avenue of appeal. 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. In the determination of an appeal against the refusal of leave by the Court of First Instance, the Court of Appeal will 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, the appeal should be dismissed. It is not the role of this Court to examine the decision of the Board afresh as if the appeal were a fresh application for judicial review.

12.In the present case, the Board rejected the applicant’s claim based on its assessment of his credibility. Detailed reasons and considerations were set out in the Board’s decision, which provided a rational foundation for the Board’s conclusion. As the Judge concluded, there was no basis for suggesting that the Board’s decision was biased. The Board’s conclusions on the facts and credibility seem to us to be entirely within its remit. The Judge found no public law error in the Board’s decision.

13.No ground has been advanced by the applicant to show that there was any error in the Judge’s decision to refuse leave to apply for judicial review. The matters stated in his Notice of Appeal and affirmation in this court evidently do not give rise to any valid ground of appeal.

14.For these reasons, the appeal is dismissed.

The Applicant, unrepresented, acting in person