Le Thi Phuong v. Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office
|
HCAL 3563/2019 [2025] HKCFI 845 IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST No 3563 of 2019
Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review Following:
Order by Deputy High Court Judge (Non-refoulement Claims) Teresa Wu made on 4 February 2025:
Observations for the Applicant: 1.By Form 86 (“Form 86”) filed on 2 December 2019, the Applicant applies for leave to apply for judicial review of the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office dated 22 November 2019 (“the Board’s Decision”) confirming the decision of the Director of Immigration dated 8 January 2018, which rejected her non-refoulement claim on all applicable grounds under the Unified Screening Mechanism (USM). 2.I have amended Form 86 on my own motion to correctly refer the Director of Immigration as the putative interested party. 3.The material facts of this case, including the Applicant’s personal background, her case and claim, including the incidents relied on by her to allege that she would be harmed or killed in Vietnam by her creditors, and the procedural and immigration history, etc. have been set out comprehensively in the Board’s Decision[1]. 4.The Applicant is absent from the oral hearing. I have proceeded to consider the merits of her present application for leave to apply for judicial review: see Re Abdus Salam [2019] HKCA 1091. I am not satisfied that her intended challenge of the Board’s Decision is reasonably arguable with any realistic prospects of success at all: see Peter Po Fun Chan v Winnie Cheung & Another (2007) 10 HKCFAR 676. I note that she has failed to state her grounds for judicial review in Form 86 as required: see Ho Loy & Another v Director of Environmental Protection, HCAL 21/2015 (dated 22 December 2016) at §142. Other than exhibiting a copy of the Board’s Decision, the supporting affirmation contains absolutely no material of substance to discharge her duty to make full and frank disclosure in an ex parte application: see Re Leung Kwok Hung, HCAL 83/2012 (28 September 2012) at §35. In the premises, she has completely failed to demonstrate that the Board committed any errors of law or there was procedural unfairness or irrationality in the Board’s Decision that the Court should intervene by way of judicial review. 5.For these reasons, I make an order that the application herein for leave be dismissed. Dated the 10th day of March 2025
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
Form CALL-1 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Cases cited in this judgment