Ha Thi Binh v. Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office

HCAL 266/2022

[2026] HKCFI 2391

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST No 266 of 2022

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 15 November 2019 be refused.

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

Observations for the Applicant:

Introduction

1.By Form 86 filed on 27 April 2022, 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 15 November 2019 (the “Board’s Decision”). By that decision, the Board confirmed the decision of the Director of Immigration dated 12 June 2017 (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 attended the oral hearing scheduled before me. She informed the Court that she was worried if the Leave Application was refused, she would be repatriated.

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 almost 2.5 years delay in question is very substantial. The Applicant has not applied for an extension of time nor provided any explanation for the delay in her affirmation made in support of the Leave Application. When asked about the delay, she simply said she had no explanation.

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 her supporting affirmation. As matter stands, there is only a general and vague assertion that the Board’s Decision is clearly unsafe and wrong. Therefore, 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 she fears that she will be harmed or killed by the Creditor and his followers. It had assessed the material facts and evidence of the Applicant’s claim including the COI materials and found her claim to be implausible or unreliable. The Board was therefore entitled to reject the factual basis of the Applicant’s claim including the allegations that (1) she was or is subjected to any risk of harm in her home country and (2) she came to Hong Kong because of the alleged threat or harm from the Creditor. The Board was also entitled to find state protection would be available and that the Applicant has many options for relocation in Vietnam.

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 her 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 30^th 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