Doan Van Khoi v. Director of Immigration

HCAL 685/2025

[2025] HKCFI 2570

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST

NO. 685 OF 2025

_____________

BETWEEN

_____________

_____________

JUDGMENT

_____________

THE APPLICATION

1.This is the applicant’s application for leave to apply for judicial review of the Director’s Decision dated 7 March 2025 (“the Director’s Decision”) refusing his claim on the applicable risks[1], which had been determined in his previous application under HCAL 1101 of 2019 (“the previous application”).

2.Since the applicant had prepared his affirmation in support of this application in English, this Judgment is written in English although the decisions in his previous claim were written in Chinese.

3.The Court, upon its own motion, has called upon the applicant to appear before it to show cause why the Court should not make a restricted proceedings order (“RPO”) against him since there is evidence to show that if unrestricted, the applicant may take out further proceedings to assert his non-refoulement claim on the same facts of the case, thereby abusing the legal process.

4.The applicant was absent before the Court on 28 April 2025. The Court therefore assumed that the applicant abandoned his right to be heard in respect of the RPO to be imposed on him. I shall deal with his application on the papers.

The procedural history

5.The applicant, aged 43, is a national of Vietnam. He entered Hong Kong illegally in 2015 and surrendered to the Immigration Department. He lodged a non-refoulement for the reason that, if refouled, he will be harmed or killed by the Vietnamese government because he had written and published articles criticizing the government in Vietnam.

6.The Director dismissed his claim for the reason that it was not substantiated. He appealed to Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office (“the Board”). The Board found that his claim was unfounded because his evidence was inconsistent and unreliable. It therefore dismissed his appeal.

7.His application for leave for judicial review of the Board’s Decision was dismissed by the Court of the First Instance on 27 June 2022. He applied for extension of time to appeal to the Court of Appeal and his application was refused.

8.He appealed to the Court of Appeal against the Court of the First Instance’s decision on extension of time to appeal; such application was dismissed by the Court of Appeal.

9.He issued a Notice of Motion to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal; but the Court of Appeal dismissed his application.

10.He applied to the Court of Final Appeal for leave to appeal, but his application was refused on 23 September 2024.

11.By letter received by the Director on 4 November 2024, the applicant applied to the Director for making a subsequent claim for non-refoulement protection.

12.By the Director’s Decision, the Director refused his application.

The subsequent claim application

13.Under section 37ZO of the Ordinance, he has to satisfy the immigration officer that there has been a significant change of circumstances since the previous claim was finally determined and such change of circumstances, when taken together with the material previously submitted, would give the subsequent claim a realistic prospect of success.

14.Upon the immigration officer’s advice, he had submitted additional materials in support of his application.

15.The immigration officer considered his evidence and found that the applicant relied on similar reasons in his previous claim; that his evidence on the facts of his case was found to be unreliable by the Board in the previous claim; that up till now, he has not been able to produce any documentary evidence to prove that he had written adverse comments on the police of Vietnam; that there is doubt on whether he was a journalist in a media in Vietnam and had written the adverse article as he alleged in his previous claim; that state protection is available if he returns to Vietnam and internal relocation is viable. [15]-[21]

16.For those reasons, the immigration officer was not satisfied with the applicant’s subsequent claim application satisfied the conditions under section 37ZO of the Ordinance and he refused his application for subsequent claim.

Application for leave to apply for judicial review of the Director’s Decision

17.The applicant filed Form 86 on 17 March 2025 for judicial review of the Director’s Decision. Attached to Form 86 is a statement of grounds, which I shall summarize below.

(1) The Director’s Decision is wrong and unreasonable.

(2) The Director had failed to consider state acquiescence.

(3) The Director had placed too much reliance on the country of origin information without giving due weight to his personal background and experience.

(4) The Director has required him to answer questions that he was not in a position to offer any response.

18.In the affirmation in support of his application, the applicant has not raised any specific reason to challenge the Director’s Decision.

Discussion

19.The role of this Court is supervisory, meaning that it ensures that the Director complied with the public law requirements in coming to his Decision. The Court will not usurp his fact-finding power. 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).

20.The Court will bear in mind that the Director’s Decision should be examined with rigorous examination and anxious scrutiny.

21.Those grounds under paragraph 17 are his bare assertions or personal opinions without any evidence in support. There is no valid reason to challenge the Director’s Decision.

22.The applicant fails to show that he has any realistic chance of success in his intended judicial review of the Director’s Decision.

23.I dismiss his application for leave to apply for judicial review of the Director’s Decision.

The RPO

24.Because of the applicant’s attempt to abuse the process, the Court has to protect its process to be abused again. The Court has the inherent jurisdiction to prevent the applicant from abusing its process by making a RPO and the extended order against him. See paragraphs 7 & 8 of the judgment of the Court of Final Appeal in Ng Yat Chi v Max Share Limited and China Resources (Holdings) Company Limited (2005) 8 HKCFAR 1.

25.RPO is appropriate for the present case. See The Secretary for Justice v Yuen Oi Yee Lisa, alias Lisa Yuen, Lisa Lee and another [2006] 1 HKLRD 679, Re Wahyuni v Direcctor of Immigration [2021] HKCFI 1991, by Hon. Chow JA (sitting as an additional judge of the Court of First Instance), 6 July 2021, § 9 and Re Uddin Borhan v Director of Immigration [2021] HKCFI 2129, § 25.

26.For this reason, the Court has called upon the applicant to appear before it to show cause why RPO should not be made against him. As the applicant was absent at the hearing, he is deemed to waive his right to make submissions to show cause why RPO should not be made against him under the circumstances.

27.I am therefore satisfied that, if not restrained, it is likely that the applicant would proceed with this application and other proceedings for the sole purpose of remaining in Hong Kong only. I shall therefore make the RPO in terms below:

(1) The Applicant be prohibited from commencing any fresh proceedings by whatever originating process, or continuing any existing legal proceedings, relating to any non-refoulement claim of the Applicant in the High Court and any appeal, including this Order, without leave of the Court of First Instance.

(2) All applications for leave under paragraph (1) shall be made to the Deputy High Court Judge K.W. Lung or in his absence, the Judge in charge of the Constitutional and Administrative Law List or such other Judge as may be designated by the Chief Judge of the High Court to hear cases in the Constitutional and Administrative Law List.

(3) At least 7 days before filing any application for leave under paragraph (1), the Applicant do notify in writing each intended defendant or respondent of her intention to make such application, enclosing a copy of the draft document by which the fresh proceedings are intended to be commenced, and if any response is received by the Applicant from any such intended defendant or respondent, that the Applicant do file a copy of each such response together with the said application for leave.

(4) Any intended defendant or respondent having notice of such intended proceedings be entitled but under no obligation to place before the Court written representations regarding the same.

(5) All applications made pursuant to this order and all ancillary matters be dealt with by the court on paper and without any oral hearing unless the Court should otherwise direct.

(6) If the Applicant should issue fresh proceedings falling or which may fall within the terms of paragraph (1) without first seeking the Court’s leave, and if such fact should come to the notice of the Registrar of the High Court or any Master or Judge, such fresh proceedings be referred to the Court for a decision as to whether they should be permitted to continue or should be dismissed.

(7) Notice of each decision by this Court or the designated Judge made pursuant to this order be given in writing to the Applicant and to each intended defendant or respondent named in the fresh proceedings.

(8) Whether or not any fresh proceedings are brought to the notice of the Court, if a defendant or respondent is served with such proceedings without the relevant documents being accompanied by either an order granting leave to commence such proceedings or a direction that leave to commence such proceedings is not required, such defendant or respondent be entitled to make no response to such service pending notification of the court’s decision in relation to those proceedings; and that time for acknowledging service or for otherwise responding to such proceedings be deemed extended accordingly.

(9) No more than one leave application under paragraph (1) may be made by the Applicant within any period of 3 months.

(10) No appeal shall lie from a decision of the Judge granting or refusing leave within this Order unless leave to appeal has been granted by the Court.

(11) This order shall cease to have effect at the end of 5 years from the date of this order.

(12) A copy of this Order shall be sent to the Registrar of the High Court.

DISPOSITION

28.The applicant’s application is dismissed.

29.RPO in terms of paragraph 27 be made against the applicant.

The applicant was unrepresented and did not appear.