Vu Xuan Mat v. Director of Immigration
Read the full judgment text of HCAL 945/2021 on BabelCite. This High Court CFI judgment was delivered on 1 April 2026.
1. The Court of Appeal had allowed the applicant’s appeal and referred this case to this Court for re-hearing because this Court had mistakenly assessed the Board’s Decision in his previous claim HCAL 945 of 2021 (“the previous claim”) whereas he lodged a subsequent claim with the Director, who refused his application, and he applied for leave for judicial review of the Director’s decision.
Cited by 1 case · Cites 1 case
|
HCAL 945/2021 and HCAL 145/2026 (heard together) [2026] HKCFI 1523 IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST NOS. 945 of 2021 AND 145 of 2026 (Heard together)
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 K.W. Lung: Leave to apply for Judicial Review be dismissed. Observations for the Applicant: THE APPLICATION 1.The Court of Appeal had allowed the applicant’s appeal and referred this case to this Court for re-hearing because this Court had mistakenly assessed the Board’s Decision in his previous claim HCAL 945 of 2021 (“the previous claim”) whereas he lodged a subsequent claim with the Director, who refused his application, and he applied for leave for judicial review of the Director’s decision. 2.This is the applicant’s application for leave to apply for judicial review of the Director’s Decision dated 28 June 2021 (“the Director’s Decision”) refusing his subsequent claim on the applicable risks[1], which had been determined in the previous claim. 3.The applicant appeared before the Court on 25 February 2026 and admitted that he had lodged for non-refoulement protection in the previous claim and this is the second application on the same facts and grounds. The procedural history 4.The applicant, aged, is a national of Vietnam. He is an illegal immigration and had lodged a non-refoulement claim with the Director for the reason that, if refouled, he will be harmed or killed by his creditor because he was unable to repay his loan. 5.The Director dismissed his claim for the reason that it was not substantiated. He appealed to Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office (“the Board”). The Board found that his claim was unfounded and dismissed his appeal. 6.He was repatriated to Vietnam on 21 June 2019. 7.On 11 April 2021, he was arrested by police and referred to the Immigration Department. He raised a subsequent claim on 4 May 2021. 8.By the Director’s Decision, the Director refused his application. The subsequent claim application 9.Under section 37ZO of the Ordinance, he has to satisfy the immigration officer that there has been a significant change of circumstances since the previous claim was finally determined and such change of circumstances, when taken together with the material previously submitted, would give the subsequent claim a realistic prospect of success. 10.Upon the immigration officer’s advice, he had submitted additional materials in support of his application. The additional materials revealed that upon his return to Vietnam in June 2019, the creditor in the previous claim and his subordinates went to his premises where they demanded repayment; and upon his response that he was unable to repay, attacked him, causing injuries to him. He reported the matter to police, who refused to accept his complaint. He therefore came to Hong Kong again. 11.The immigration officer considered his evidence and found that the applicant relied on the similar reasons in his previous claim, which had been considered by the Board and the Board found that state protection was available to him and internal relocation was viable. The Board therefore dismissed his appeal in the previous claim. 12.For those reasons, the immigration officer did not accept that the applicant’s subsequent claim application satisfied the conditions under section 37ZO of the Ordinance and he refused his application. Application for leave to apply for judicial review of the Director’s Decision 13.The applicant filed Form 86 on 13 January 2026 for judicial review of the Director’s Decision. 14.The applicant has raised the grounds below in support of his application.
Discussion 15.The role of this Court is supervisory, meaning that it ensures that the Director complied with the public law requirements in coming to his Decision. The Court will not usurp his fact-finding power. 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). 16.The Court will bear in mind that the Director’s Decision should be examined with rigorous examination and anxious scrutiny. Before me, the applicant admitted he relied on the same reasons of his previous claim for his subsequent claim. 17.The reasons in paragraph 14 are general assertions without any evidence in support or simply non-existent. The Director did not have an interview with him. 18.There is no valid reason to challenge the Director’s Decision. 19.The applicant fails to show that he has any realistic chance of success in his intended judicial review of the Director’s Decision. 20.I dismiss his application for leave to apply for judicial review of the Director’s Decision. DISPOSITION 21.The applicant’s application is dismissed. Dated the 1st day of April 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 [1] The applicable risks are:
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Cases cited in this judgment
Other judgments that cite this case
Further hearings and rulings under HCAL 945/2021