Nguyen Thi Hien v. Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office

HCAL 1624/2021

[2026] HKCFI 1068

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST No. 1624 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 (Non-refoulement Claims) Connie Lee:

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 as the Putative Interested Party.

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

Observation for the Applicant:

Introduction

1.By Form 86 filed on 29 November 2021, the Applicant seeks 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 24 November 2021 (the “Board’s Decision”). By that decision, the Board confirmed the decision of the Director of Immigration dated 27 January 2021 (the “Director’s Decision”), which had rejected her non-refoulement claim on all applicable grounds under the Unified Screening Mechanism (USM).

2.The Applicant’s background, the basis of her claim and the arguments she advanced had been set out in detail in the Board’s Decision. It is not necessary for me to repeat the same here. Unless otherwise specified, the abbreviations and descriptions used in the Board’s Decision, the hyperlink[1] to which is included below, are also adopted herein.

3.The Applicant did not attend the oral hearing. I have considered the merits of the Leave Application based on the materials available before me.[2]

Discussion

4.Judicial review does not operate as a further avenue of appeal. The Leave Application operates as a “filtering” process and there is no requirement or expectation to give elaborate reasons for my decision.[3] In seeking to challenge the Board’s Decision, the Applicant ought to have clearly and precisely identified the grounds relied upon in the Form 86 and in her supporting affirmation. As matter stands, the Applicant has failed to identify any valid or effective public law grounds.[4]

5.In view of the seriousness of the issues involved, I have reminded myself of the enhanced standard required by law. Despite the Applicant did not advance any valid ground for the intended judicial review, I have scrutinized the Board’s Decision for any errors of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality.

6.I am not satisfied that the Applicant’s intended application for judicial review of the Board’s Decision is reasonably arguable with any realistic prospects of success.[5]

7.First, the primary decision makers are the Director of Immigration and the Board and the Court should not usurp the role of the Board. Assessment of evidence, country of origin information (COI) materials, risk of harm, state protection and viability of internal relocation are primarily within the province of the Board (and the Director of the Immigration).[6]

8.The Board was acutely aware of the Applicant’s claim that she believes she will be harmed or killed by the Creditor if she is refouled to Vietnam because she has no money to repay the Loan. 

9.The Board had assessed the material facts and evidence of the Applicant’s claim and found that she had not provided any evidence to support her claim. The Board was therefore entitled to conclude that:-

(1)   It was unconvincing that the Creditor and his fellows intended to kill the Applicant.

(2)   The harm, actual and perceived from the Creditor and his fellows was not imminent and ill-treatment by them, if any, had not attained a minimum level of severity. It follows that the future risk as suggested by the Applicant was her own speculation only. There was no indication that the Creditor and his fellows are public officials or acting in any official capacity. The threat (if any) was originated from a private dispute between the Applicant and the Creditor.

(3)   It was not suggested that the Applicant would not be able to reestablish herself in her home state or relocate elsewhere in Vietnam.

10.In addition, the Board had also duly considered and assessed the COI materials before concluding that reasonable state protection would be available to the Applicant.

11.Second, there is simply nothing to indicate the Board had failed to take into account any relevant matters. The Board’s Decision was comprehensive with adequate reasons provided. The Board was quite simply entitled to come to the conclusions it did.

12.Third, in all circumstances, I can discern no error of law or procedural unfairness or irrationality on the part of the Board in the assessment and rejection of the Applicant’s claim.

Conclusion

13.Accordingly, I dismiss the Leave Application.

Dated the 9^th day of March 2026

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