Vu Thi Hue v. Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office
Read the full judgment text of HCAL 3870/2019 on BabelCite. This High Court CFI judgment was delivered on 16 April 2025.
1. By a Form 86 filed on 27 December 2019 (the “Form 86”), the Applicant applied for leave to apply for judicial review of “dismiss hearing dismissed my appeal by torture claims appeal board dismissed my petition”. She named the Torture Claims Appeal Board (the “TCAB”) and the Director of Immigration (the “DOI”) as proposed respondents, and inserted an address at Two Chinachem Exchange Square in the interested party section.
Cites 2 cases
|
HCAL 3870/2019 [2025] HKCFI 1554 IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST No 3870 of 2019
Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review Following:
Order by Deputy High Court Judge (Non-refoulement Claims) Martin Wong: The application for leave to apply for judicial review be dismissed. Observations for the Applicant: Introduction 1.By a Form 86 filed on 27 December 2019 (the “Form 86”), the Applicant applied for leave to apply for judicial review of “dismiss hearing dismissed my appeal by torture claims appeal board dismissed my petition”. She named the Torture Claims Appeal Board (the “TCAB”) and the Director of Immigration (the “DOI”) as proposed respondents, and inserted an address at Two Chinachem Exchange Square in the interested party section. 2.From the papers filed for this application, there was a decision by the TCAB dated 28 March 2017 which affirmed the decisions by the DOI dated 17 February 2015 and 18 November 2016 in refusing the Applicant’s non-refoulement protection claim. The hearing venue address stated in the TCAB Decision was that of the Two Chinachem Exchange Square address inserted in the Form 86. 3.I accordingly amended the Form 86 on my own motion, naming only the TCAB as the putative respondent and the DOI as a putative interested party. 4.The Application requested for a hearing of this application but she was absent. I shall deal with this application on paper. Background 5.The Applicant is a national of Vietnam. She seeks non-refoulement protection on the basis that she will be harmed or killed by her husband and debt collectors if she is returned. Her personal background, the relevant facts and relevant procedural history have been sufficiently set out in the TCAB Decision, which can be assessed through a hyperlink[1], and I shall not repeat the same herein. Discussion 6.In a judicial review, this court does not provide a further avenue of appeal. Though in non-refoulement case an enhanced standard in scrutinizing the decision of the TCAB is required given the seriousness of the issue at hand, this court should not usurp the role of the TCAB, which together with the DOI are the primary decision-makers. This 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 TCAB (Nupur Mst v Director of Immigration [2018] HKCA 524, [14(1)]). There must be a reasonably arguable claim with a realistic prospect of success before leave for judicial review will be granted (Peter Po Fun Chan v Winnie Cheung & Anr (2007) 10 HKCFAR 676). 7.In her affirmation filed in support of the Form 86, the Applicant did not point to any error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality of the TCAB Decision. 8.Looking at the TCAB Decision, all the available evidence was placed before the TCAB and after careful consideration of the same and the exchanges with the Applicant, the TCAB came to the conclusion that the Applicant’s allegations were not made out [2, 31-34]. 9.The TCAB further analysed each of the four applicable grounds under the USM and applied the correct legal principles in each instance, and came to the conclusion that none was made out [5-30]. Also, the TCAB concluded that both state protection and internal relocation were available to the Applicant [23, 30]. 10.All in all, I do not see any errors of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the TCAB Decision, despite rigorous examination and anxious scrutiny. Conclusion 11.For the above reasons, I am not satisfied that this court should intervene by way of judicial review. I therefore dismiss the application. Dated the 16th day of April 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 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||