Nguyen Thi Than v. Torture Claims Appeal Board
|
CACV 231 /2025, [2026] HKCA 565 On appeal from [2025] HKCFI 1394 IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION COURT OF APPEAL CIVIL APPEAL NO 231 OF 2025 (ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 120 OF 2020) ________________________ BETWEEN
________________________
________________________ J U D G M E N T ________________________ Hon Kwan VP (giving the Judgment of the Court): Background 1.On 10 April 2025, Deputy High Court Judge Michael Wong refused to grant leave for the applicant to apply for judicial review against the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board (“the Board”) concerning her non-refoulement claim[1]. The applicant filed a Notice of Appeal against the said decision on 24 April 2025. 2.The applicant is a national of Vietnam. She entered Hong Kong illegally on 29 November 2015 and was arrested by the police on 29 November 2015. She lodged her non-refoulement claim on 2 December 2015 on the basis that she would be harmed or killed by her creditor and his man if she is refouled. 3.By a Notice of Decision dated 22 September 2017, the Director of Immigration (“the Director”) rejected the applicant’s non-refoulement claim on all applicable grounds including torture risk[2], BOR 2 risk[3], BOR 3 risk[4] and persecution risk[5]. Her appeal against the Director’s decision was rejected by the Board on 23 December 2019[6]. The judge’s decision 4.The applicant filed a Form 86 and an affirmation on 13 January 2020 to seek leave to apply for judicial review against the decision of the Board. She did not put forward any grounds for her intended challenge against the Board’s decision. She was absent at the hearing scheduled before DHCJ Michael Wong on 11 March 2025 so the judge dealt with the application on paper. The leave application was dismissed on 10 April 2025. Grounds of appeal 5.The applicant stated the following grounds of appeal in the Notice of Appeal:
6.The applicant submitted a written consent for this appeal to be disposed of on paper without an oral hearing. The contentions in her written submissions may be summarised as follows:
Analysis and disposition 7.The general principles regarding an appeal in a non-refoulement case have been set out comprehensively by the Court of Appeal in Nupur Mst v Director of Immigration [2018] HKCA 524 at §14. 8.In this appeal, the applicant reiterated the problems she faced in Vietnam and stated her complaints against the Director and the Board but did not adduce any evidence which can refute the findings of the Board. She did not put forward any ground against the judge’s decision. She failed to demonstrate that the judge had made errors of law or failed to take account of relevant matters already placed before the court or was otherwise plainly wrong. 9.For the above reasons, the appeal is devoid of merit and is dismissed accordingly.
The Applicant (Appellant), acting in person [2] As defined in Part VIIC of the Immigration Ordinance (Cap 115), which definition is the same as that found in Article 1 of the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. [3] This refers to the risk of being arbitrarily deprived of life under Article 2 of section 8 of the Hong Kong Bill of Rights Ordinance (Cap 383). [4] This refers to risk of torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment under Article 3 of section 8 of the Hong Kong Bill of Rights Ordinance (Cap 383). [5] This refers to the risk of persecution with reference to the non-refoulement principle under Article 33 of the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees and its 1967 Protocol. [6] The Board’s decision can be viewed in the following hyperlink: |