Nguyen Lam Son v. Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office

HCAL 1728/2021

[2026] HKCFI 1433

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST No. 1728 of 2021

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 oral submissions by the Applicant in open court;

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.  Extension of time for the application for leave to apply for judicial review of the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office dated 11 March 2021 be refused.

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

Observation for the Applicant:

Introduction

1.By Form 86 filed on 20 December 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 11 March 2021 (the “Board’s Decision”). By that decision, the Board confirmed the decision of the Director of Immigration dated 9 September 2020 (the “Director’s Decision”), which had rejected his non-refoulement claim on all applicable grounds under the Unified Screening Mechanism (USM).

2.The Applicant’s background, the basis of his claim and the arguments he advanced had been set out in detail in the Board’s Decision. It is not necessary for me to repeat the same here. The Board’s Decision is contained in the hyperlink[1]below.

3.The Applicant attended the hearing which took place on 19 January 2026 but did not have anything specific to add in respect of the Leave Application.

Discussion

4.The Leave Application was lodged out of time under Order 53 rule 4 of the Rules of High Court, Cap. 4A.

5.In considering whether to extend time, the Court shall have regard to (1) the length of delay; (2) the reason for delay; (3) the merits of the intended application; and (4) any prejudice that may be occasioned to the applicant if leave is refused as against the prejudice to the respondent and the public administration if leave is granted and (5) question of general public importance.[2]

6.First, the six-month delay in question is substantial. The Applicant has not applied for an extension of time nor provided any explanation for the delay in support of the Leave Application. When asked why the Leave application was taken out so late, he only said that it was a long time ago and he could not recall the reason.

7.Second, regarding merits, I am not persuaded that the Applicant’s intended application for judicial review is reasonably arguable with any realistic prospect of success.[3]

8.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.[4] 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 his supporting affirmation. As matter stands, the Applicant has failed to identify any valid or effective public law grounds.[5]

9.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.

10.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]

11.The Board was acutely aware of the Applicant’s claim that he will be harmed or killed by the government officials because he was diagnosed with Aids. It had assessed the material facts and evidence of the Applicant’s claim and found them to be incredible. In fact, the Board noted that there was no medical evidence to support the claim that the Applicant was diagnosed with Aids. The Board was therefore entitled to reject the factual basis of the Applicant’s claim including the allegations that (1) he would face a genuine and imminent risk of being subject to ill-treatment because he had Aids and (2) those who physically attacked him were state actors. The Board was also entitled to find reasonable state protection and medical treatment within Vietnam would be available to the Applicant having considered the COI materials.

12.There is simply nothing to indicate the Board had failed to take into account any relevant matters. I also do not find any error of law or procedural unfairness or irrationality on the part of the Board in the assessment and rejection of the Applicant’s claim.

13.Finally, I discern no prejudice in refusing to allow the Applicant to proceed with an application that is, in any event, wholly unmeritorious. Conversely, allowing him to do so would disrupt and undermine the proper administration and cause prejudice to the Putative Respondent. For completeness, I also do not accept (if so contended by the Applicant) that the matter raises any question of general public importance requiring determination by the Court.

Conclusion

14.I see no good reason to extend time for the Applicant to apply for leave to seek judicial review. I accordingly dismiss the Leave Application.

Dated the 27^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