Nguyen Dang Manh v. Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office

HCAL 2078/2020

[2025] HKCFI 5323

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST No. 2078 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 present in open court;

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

Leave to apply for Judicial Review be dismissed.

Observations for the Applicant:

THE APPLICATION

1.The applicant applies for leave to apply for judicial review of the Decision dated 11 September 2020 of the Torture Claims Appeal Board (“the Board’s Decision).

2.The applicant requested an oral hearing. He appeared before the Court on 20 October 2025.

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.This Form CALL-1 is in English because there is evidence that the applicant understands English.

The applicant

5.The applicant is a national of Vietnam. He was an illegal immigrant for the reason that he sneaked into Hong Kong on 28 July 2019 and was arrested. He lodged a non‑refoulement claim on the basis that, if refouled, he will be harmed or killed by his creditor from whom he had borrowed 800 million VND and he was unable to repay his loan. The creditor had assaulted him and threatened to kill him if he fails to pay the loan.

6.Details of his claim are set out in the Board’s Decision. See hyperlink https://legalref.judiciary.hk/doc/judg/html/vetted/other/en/2020/HCAL002078_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 27 December 2019 (“Director’s Decision”), the Director dismissed the applicant’s claim because it was unsubstantiated.

The Board’s Decision

9.The applicant appealed the Director’s Decision to the Board. On 5 June 2020, the Board conducted an oral hearing for him.

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

(1)  State protection will be available to him if he returns to Vietnam. [66]

(2)  The level of probability of torture if he returns to Vietnam is very low. [74]

(3)  Internal relocation is viable. [84]

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

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

12.The applicant has filed Form 86 dated 16 October 2020 for leave to apply for judicial review of the Board’s Decision.

13.The applicant has only reiterated his story and 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. Before me, the applicant admitted that the Board’s Decision is not wrong. He further said that he would withdraw his application because it is safe for him to return to Vietnam.

16.It is clear that now the applicant has no ground to support his claim and his application must be dismissed.

17.Accordingly, I dismiss his application.

Dated the 11^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