BabelCite

Bien Huu Tuan v. Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office

Read the full judgment text of HCAL 1107/2021 on BabelCite. This High Court CFI judgment was delivered on 21 May 2026.

1. By a Form 86 filed on 6 August 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 24 June 2021 ( “the Board’s Decision” ).  The Board’s Decision was made after an oral hearing on 1 April 2021 of the Applicant’s appeal/petition from the Director of Immigration ( “DI” )’s first-tier decision dated 30 October 2020.  A copy of the Board’s Decision can be seen by the following hyperlink

Case No.HCAL 1107/2021[2026] HKCFI 2857
Court
High Court CFI
Date21 May 2026
Judge—
Case Document
100%Judiciary

HCAL 1107/2021

[2026] HKCFI 2857

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST No. 1107 of 2021

BETWEEN
  Bien Huu Tuan 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 being absent 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 6 August 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 24 June 2021 (“the Board’s Decision”).  The Board’s Decision was made after an oral hearing on 1 April 2021 of the Applicant’s appeal/petition from the Director of Immigration (“DI”)’s first-tier decision dated 30 October 2020.  A copy of the Board’s Decision can be seen by the following hyperlink[1].  On my own motion, I amend the Form 86 as per paragraph 1 of the above order.

2.The Applicant is a Vietnamese national.  His claim for non-refoulment protection arose from threats from moneylender.  The Board, after an intense factual inquiry into the claim, came to the view that the claim had no substance and was riddled with internal inconsistency.  The Board did not accept the Applicant’s evidence and in any event found that his risk of being ill-treated to be low, there was sufficient State protection and there was also available internal relocation alternative.     

3.The Applicant has not set out any grounds of judicial review suggesting why the Board’s Decision was vitiated by public law error.  In his supporting affirmation, he just repeated the substance of his claim.  He was absent from the oral hearing of this application.   

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 21st 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 21st May 2026


Bien Huu Tuan

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 21st May 2026

Torture Claims Appeal Board/ Non-Refoulement Claims Petition Office
Putative Respondent’s ref. no.:
USM 17374/20/11/42/V2626

Director of Immigration
Putative Interested Party’s ref. no.:
QA T/C 620/20 (formerly RBCZ 10518/20) (T1I78)

Department of Justice,
Senior Assistant Law Officer
(Civil Law)
(Civil Litigation Unit 2)


Form CALL-1