Bui Van Kien v. Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office

Case No.HCAL 2357/2020[2025] HKCFI 6279

Court

High Court CFI

Date19 Dec 2025

Judge—

Case Document

100%

HCAL 2357/2020

[2025] HKCFI 6279

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST NO 2357 OF 2020

BETWEEN
	Bui Van Kien	Applicant
	and
	The Torture Claims Appeal Board/	Putative
	Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office	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) Vincent Lung:

1. Form 86 be amended, naming only the Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non‑refoulement Claims Petition Office as the Putative Respondent and the Director of Immigration be named as the Putative Interested Party.

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

Observations for the Applicant:

Introduction

1.By a Form 86 filed on 1 December 2020 (the “Form 86”), the Applicant applied for leave to apply for judicial review against the decision by the Torture Claims Appeal Board (the “TCAB”) dated 19 November 2020 (the “TCAB Decision”), which affirmed the decision of the Director of Immigration (the “DOI”) dated 21 August 2019.

2.I amend the Form 86 on my own motion to name only the TCAB as the putative respondent and the DOI as the putative interested party.

3.The Applicant requested for a hearing of this application but he was absent at the hearing. I shall deal with this application on paper.

Background

4.The Applicant is a national of Vietnam. He seeks non-refoulement protection on the basis that he would be harmed or killed by his creditor if he is to go back. The Applicant borrowed money from a triad society (“black society” in his words) for his business and he was unable to repay. There were incidents of assault against the Applicant and death threats were made by some gangsters of the money lender. The Applicant’s personal background, the relevant facts and relevant procedural history have been sufficiently set out in the TCAB Decision, which can be viewed through a hyperlink[1]. I shall therefore not repeat them.

Discussion

5.The leave application operates as a filtering process and there is no requirement or expectation to give elaborate reasons for my decision: Re Zunariyah [2018] HKCA 14 at [23]. It is sufficient to state my observations after considering the TCAB Decision and the materials adduced by the Applicant.

6.I remind myself that in a judicial review, this court does not provide a further avenue of appeal. Though in non-refoulement cases an enhanced standard in scrutinizing the decision of the TCAB is required given the seriousness of the issue at hand, this court should not usurp the role of the TCAB, which together with the DOI are the primary decision-makers. A finding of fact is exclusively within the realm of the TCAB, and this 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 TCAB: Nupur Mst v Director of Immigration [2018] HKCA 524 at [14(1)]. There must be a reasonably arguable case with a realistic prospect of success before leave for judicial review will be granted: Peter Po Fun Chan v Winnie Cheung (2007) 10 HKCFAR 676.

7.In a proper Form 86, an applicant is required to identify the grounds of judicial review clearly and succinctly: Ho Loy v Director of Environmental Protection (unreported, HCAL 21/2015, 22 December 2016) at [142], and further to make full and frank disclosure of all material facts to be verified by an affidavit.

8.The Applicant did not point to any error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality of the TCAB Decision in the Form 86. In his affirmation in support he merely stated that his life remained in danger.

9.As can be seen from the TCAB Decision, the TCAB took into account all the evidence available [2-29, 32-141] and found that on the basis of the same, applying also the correct legal principles in respect of all four applicable grounds and the overall approach [142-157, 184-188, 190-194, 210-215, 226-230, 247-250] and properly considering Country of Origin information [22-24, together with the various Appendices to the TCAB Decision], the Applicant’s allegations were insufficient to make out any of the applicable grounds [158-181, 195-209, 216-225, 231-246, 251-259]. The TCAB also found key aspects of the Applicant’s evidence to be incredible [164-179].

10.The TCAB also concluded that state protection and internal relocation were available on the evidence [201-204, 243-245]. There were conclusions that the TCAB was fully entitled to come to.

11.All in all, I do not see any errors of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the TCAB Decision, despite rigorous examination and anxious scrutiny. The Applicant’s intended challenge to the TCAB Decision is not reasonably arguable, and accordingly the application for leave to apply for judicial review is dismissed.

Dated the 19^th day of December 2025

(Gladys 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 19/12/2025 Bui Van Kien 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 19/12/2025 Torture Claims Appeal Board Putative Respondent’s ref. no.: USM 16242/19/8/104/V2341 Director of Immigration Putative Interested Party’s ref. no.: QA T/C 590/19(Formerly RBCZ 10417/19) Department of Justice, Senior Assistant Law Officer (Civil Law) (Civil Litigation Unit 2)

Form CALL-1

[1] https://legalref.judiciary.hk/doc/judg/html/vetted/other/en/2020/HCAL002357_2020_files/the_Board's_Decision.pdf