Le Thi Hop v. Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office

HCAL 132/2021

[2025] HKCFI 5052

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST No. 132 of 2021

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

Following;

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 18 January 2021 of the Torture Claims Appeal Board (“the Board’s Decision).

2.The applicant did not ask for a hearing.

The applicant

3.The applicant is a national of Vietnam. She was an illegal immigration for the reason that she sneaked into Hong Kong from Shenzhen by a speedboat. She was arrested by police. She lodged a non-refoulement claim with the Director of Immigration (“the Director”).

4.The applicant’s claim was based on her fear of being harmed or killed by her creditor, from whom she had borrowed 500 million VND and she was unable to repay. The creditor had gone to her home to demand payment and had threatened to kill her if she was unable to pay.  They had also assaulted her and her husband and she fainted.

5.Details of her claim are set out in the Board’s Decision.  See hyperlink https://legalref.judiciary.hk/doc/judg/html/vetted/other/en/2021/HCAL000132_2021_files/the_Board's_Decision.pdf.

The Director’s Decision

6.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”).

7.By way of the Notice of Decision dated 30 September 2019 (“Director’s Decision”), the Director dismissed the applicant’s claim because it was unsubstantiated.

The Board’s Decision

8.The applicant appealed the Director’s Decision to the Board. On 16 April 2020, the Board conducted an oral hearing for her.  She had given oral evidence and answered the Board’s questions.

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

(1)   Her story was contradictory to common sense on a number of issues.  [24]-[32] The Board concluded that the applicant had concealed the facts of her case.  [32]

(2)   Her evidence was unreliable and exaggerated.  [33]

(3)   She claimed that she was unable to have state protection because the police were corrupt.  The Board researched on the country of origin information and found that the government had been combatting corruption.  There are corruption complaints hotline for the citizens to report against corruption.  [39]

(4)   Internal relocation is viable.  [44]-[48]

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

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

11.The applicant has filed Form 86 dated 4 February 2021for leave to apply for judicial review of the Board’s Decision.

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

DISCUSSION

13.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).

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

15.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.”

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

DISPOSITION

17.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 4^th day of November 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