Pham Thi Quyen v. Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office

HCAL 2082/2020

[2025] HKCFI 4850

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST No. 2082 of 2020

Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review

NOTIFICATION of the Judge’s decision (Ord. 53 r. 3)

Following;

	consideration of documents only;       or
	consideration of documents and Applicant being absent in open court;

Order by Deputy High Court Judge K.W. Lung:

Leave to apply for Judicial Review be refused.

Observations for the Applicant:

THE APPLICATION

1.The applicant applies for leave to apply for judicial review of the Decision dated 29 September 2020 of the Torture Claims Appeal Board (“the Board’s Decision).

2.The applicant requested an oral hearing.  However, she was absent at the hearing on 8 October 2025.  I shall deal with her application on the papers.

3.Pursuant to Order 20, rule 8 and Order 53, rule 3(6) of the Rules of the High Court, Form 86 is amended to the effect that the proposed respondent is the Board and the Director of Immigration is the interested party.

4.Although the Board’s Decision is in Chinese, since the applicant’s affirmation is in English, this Form CALL-1 is in English.

The applicant

5.The applicant is a national of Vietnam.  She was an illegal immigrant as she sneaked into Hong Kong illegally on 1 August 2019.  She surrendered to the Immigration Department and lodged a non-refoulement claim on the basis that, if refouled, she will be harmed or killed by creditor, who had lent her 1 billion VND for her restaurant business.  She was unable to repay her loan.  Her creditor and his people had gone to her home and assaulted her.  They also threatened her.

6.Details of her claim are set out in the Board’s Decision.  See hyperlink https://legalref.judiciary.hk/doc/judg/html/vetted/other/en/2020/HCAL002082_2020_files/the_Board's_Decision.pdf.

The Director’s Decision

7.The Director considered the applicant’s claim in relation to the following risks:

a.  risk of torture under Part VIIC of the Immigration Ordinance, Cap. 115, (“the Ordinance”) (“Torture risk”);

b.  risk of violation of the right to life under Article 2 of Section 8 of the Hong Kong Bill of Rights Ordinance, Cap. 383 (“HKBOR”) (“BOR 2 risk”);

c.  risk of torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment (“CIDTP”) under Article 3 of Section 8 of the HKBOR (“BOR 3 risk”); and

d.  risk of persecution by reference to the non-refoulement principle under Article 33 of the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees and its 1967 Protocol (“Refugee Convention”) (“Persecution risk”).

8.By way of the Notice of Decision dated 11 March 2020 (“Director’s Decision”), the Director dismissed the applicant’s claim because it was unsubstantiated.  Besides, state protection will be available and internal relocation is viable, which will mitigate or neutralize the applicable risks.

The Board’s Decision

9.The applicant appealed the Director’s Decision to the Board.  On 11 September 2020, the Board conducted an oral hearing for her.  She had given oral evidence and answered the Board’s questions.

10.Having considered the evidence, the Board found the facts below.

(1)  The creditor did not have the intention to harm of kill her. His acts were to force her to repay the loan. [22(5)

(2)  State protection will be available to her if she returns to Vietnam. [42]

(3)  Internal relocation is a viable alternative. [47]

11.For the above reasons, the Board dismissed her appeal.

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

12.The applicant has filed Form 86 dated 19 October 2020 for leave to apply for judicial review of the Board’s Decision.

13.The applicant has not raised any specific ground to challenge the Board’s Decision.

DISCUSSION

14.The role of this Court is supervisory, meaning that it ensures that the Board complied with the public law requirements in coming to the Board’s Decision on the applicant’s appeal.  The Court will not usurp the fact-finding power vested in the Director and the Board.  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).

15.The Court will bear in mind that the Board’s Decisions should be examined with rigorous examination and anxious scrutiny. 

16.In Re: Kartini [2019] HKCA 1022, 9 September 2019, the Court of Appeal held:

“13. (1) … …Assessment of evidence and COI materials and risk of harm, state protection and viability of internal relocation are primarily within the province of the Board (and the Director). 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.”

17.The applicant has raised no valid ground to challenge the Board’s Decision.

18.The applicant fails to show that she has any realistic prospect of success in her proposed judicial review of the Board’s Decision.

DISPOSITION

19.I refuse to grant leave to the applicant to apply for judicial review of the Board’s Decision. Accordingly, I dismiss her application.

Dated the 23^rd day of October 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