Case Document

100%Judiciary

HCAL 3617/2019

[2025] HKCFI 2529

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST No 3617 of 2019

BETWEEN
	Nguyen Van Duong	Applicant
	and
	Torture Claims Appeal Board/ Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office	Putative Respondent
	and
	Director of Immigration	Putative
		Interested Party

Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review
NOTIFICATION of the Judge’s decision (Ord. 53 r. 3)

Following:

consideration of the documents only; or

consideration of the documents and the Applicant being absent in open court

Order by Deputy High Court Judge (Non-refoulement Claims) Teresa Wu made on 11 February 2025:

(1) Form 86 be amended, adding the Director of Immigration as the Putative Interested Party.

(2) The application for leave to apply for judicial review be dismissed.

Observations for the Applicant:

1.By Form 86 (“Form 86”) dated 4 December 2019, the Applicant applies for leave to apply for judicial review (“the Leave Application”) of the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board/ Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office (“the Board”) dated 25 November 2019 (“the Board’s Decision”) confirming the decision of the Director of Immigration (“the Director”) dated 2 June 2017, which rejected the Applicant’s non-refoulement claim on all grounds under the Unified Screening Mechanism (USM).

2.On my own motion, I have amended Form 86 to include the Director as the proposed interested party.

3.The Applicant is absent from the oral hearing. I have reminded myself of the Court of Appeal’s decision in Re Abdus Salam [2019] HKCA 1091.

4.The material facts of this case, including the Applicant’s personal background, the incidents alleged to support that he would be harmed or killed in Vietnam, and the immigration and procedural history, etc. have been set out in the Board’s Decision. For completeness’ sake, reference can be made to the Board’s Decision, the hyperlink to which is included below.[1]

5.After considering the Board’s reasons for refusing the Applicant’s claim with rigorous examination and anxious scrutiny, applying an enhanced standard as required by law in view of the seriousness of the issues involved, I am not satisfied that the intended challenge of the Board’s Decision is reasonably arguable with any realistic prospects of success (see Peter Po Fun Chan v Winnie Cheung & Another (2007) 10 HKCFAR 676).

6.The Board was entitled to make evaluations based on the evidence available and to decide the weight to be given to them. The assessment of evidence and COI materials and risk of harm, state protection and viability of internal relocation, as set out in the Board’s Decision, was primarily within the province of the Board. The role of the Court in a judicial review is not to provide a further avenue of appeal (see Re Lakhwinder Singh [2018] HKCA 246; Re Daljit Singh [2018] HKCA 328; Re Mudannayakalage Chaminda Pushpa Kumara [2018] HKCA 400; and Nupur Mst v Director of Immigration [2018] HKCA 524, etc.)

7.However, other than exhibiting a copy of the Board’s Decision, he has completely failed to identify his grounds for judicial review (see Ho Loy & Another v Director of Environmental Protection, HCAL 21/2015 (dated 22 December 2016) at §142) or show any procedural or other public law errors allegedly committed by the Board.

8.I accordingly make an order that Form 86 be amended as described above and the Leave Application be dismissed.

Dated the 4^th day of June 2025

(Allen 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 the Applicant’s 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 to the Applicant on 4/7/2025 Nguyen Van Duong Applicant’s ref. no: Nil		Sent 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 4/7/2025 Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office Putative Respondent’s ref. no.: USM 7450/17/6/146/V1443 Director of Immigration Putative Interested Party’s ref. no.: RBCZ 12252/15 Department of Justice, Senior Assistant Law Office (Civil Law) (Civil Litigation Unit 2)