Vu Thi Hang v. Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office

Case No.HCAL 1071/2021[2026] HKCFI 2856

Court

High Court CFI

Date21 May 2026

Judge—

Case Document

100%

HCAL 1071/2021

[2026] HKCFI 2856

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST No. 1071 of 2021

BETWEEN
	Vu Thi Hang	Applicant
	and
	Torture Claims Appeal Board/	Putative
	Non-Refoulement Claims Petition Office	Respondent
	and
	Director of Immigration	Putative
		Interested Party

Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review

NOTIFICATION of the Judge’s decision (Ord. 53 r. 3)

Following;

	consideration of the documents only; or
	consideration of the documents and the Applicant’s submissions in open court;

Order by Deputy High Court Judge (Non-Refoulement Claims) Lewis Law:

1. The Form 86 be amended to name the Director of Immigration as a putative interested party; and

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

Observations for the Applicant:

1.By a Form 86 filed on 28 July 2021, the Applicant sought leave for judicial review of a decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-Refoulement Claims Petition Office (“the Board”) dated 29 June 2021 (“the Board’s Decision”). The Board’s Decision was made after an oral hearing on 12 April 2021 of the Applicant’s appeal/petition from the Director of Immigration (“DI”)’s first-tier decision dated 29 November 2019. A copy of the Board’s Decision can be seen by the following hyperlink[1]. The Applicant originally named DI as a second putative respondent. On my own motion, I amend the Form 86 as per paragraph 1 of the above order.

2.The Applicant is a Vietnamese national. Her claim for non-refoulment protection arose from her arrest by the Vietnamese Police for a criminal offence related to morphine (of which she claimed to be innocent), her subsequent imprisonment in Vietnam and threat from gangsters for compensation for the loss of the drug. Having considered the circumstances of the case, the Board found the Applicant’s account of the core issues lacking credence, especially how the morphine came to be in her possession. By finding the basis of the claim not credible, the Board assessed that the various grounds of non-refoulement protection not applicable to the Applicant’s case.

3.The Applicant has not set out any grounds of judicial review suggesting why the Board’s Decision was vitiated by public law error. During the oral hearing of this leave application, she said she did not know what to say and just wished to stay in Hong Kong because she has got married here and her children were born here. She said her dependency visa application has been refused by DI. That, certainly, is not a subject of the present court proceedings.

4.It is trite that judicial review is not a rehearing of the merits of a non-refoulement claim. In the absence of any valid argument that the Board had committed a legal error, been irrational in its reasoning and conducted its procedure unfairly, this Court cannot intervene.

5.I have considered the Board’s Decision vigorously, but am unable to detect any reasonable argument that it should be quashed. This application for leave to apply for leave is therefore dismissed.

Dated the 21^st day of May 2026

(Wilinda YIU)
for Registrar, High Court

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

Notes for the Applicant: If leave has been granted, the Applicant or the Applicant’s solicitors must:
a) serve on the respondent and such interested parties as may be directed by the Court the order granting leave and any directions given within 14 days after the leave was granted (Order 53, rule 4A); b) issue the originating summons within 14 days after the grant of leave and serve it in accordance with Order 53, rule 5; and c) supply to every other party copies of every affidavit which the Applicant proposes to use at the hearing, including the affidavit in support of the application for leave (Order 53, rule 6(5)).		Sent to the Applicant on 21^st May 2026 Vu Thi Hang Applicant’s ref. no.: Nil.		Sent to the Putative Respondent / the Putative Respondent’s solicitors / such Putative Interested Parties as may be directed by the Court / the Putative Interested Parties’ solicitors on 21^st May 2026 Torture Claims Appeal Board/ Non-Refoulement Claims Petition Office Putative Respondent’s ref. no.: USM 16768/20/2/46/V2441 Director of Immigration Putative Interested Party’s ref. no.: QA T/C 734/19 (formerly RBCZ 10507/19) (T2I34) Department of Justice, Senior Assistant Law Officer (Civil Law) (Civil Litigation Unit 2)

Form CALL-1

[1] https://legalref.judiciary.hk/doc/judg/html/vetted/other/en/2021/HCAL001071_2021_files/the_Board's_Decision.pdf