Nguyen Thi Kim Chi v. Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office

Case No.HCAL 1259/2021[2026] HKCFI 2858

Court

High Court CFI

Date21 May 2026

Judge—

Case Document

100%

HCAL 1259/2021

[2026] HKCFI 2858

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST No. 1259 of 2021

BETWEEN
	Nguyen Thi Kim Chi	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 decision sought to be challenged as the Board’s decision dated 2 September 2021 and name the Director of Immigration as a putative interested party as opposed to a putative respondent; and

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

Observations for the Applicant:

1.By a Form 86 filed on 8 September 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 August 2021 (“the Board’s Decision”). According to a copy of the Board’s Decision obtained from the Board’s Secretariat, the Board’s Decision was actually made on 2 September 2021 after an oral hearing on 24 August 2021. The Board was then hearing the Applicant’s appeal/petition from the Director of Immigration (“DI”)’s first-tier decision dated 29 April 2021. A copy of the Board’s Decision can be seen by the following hyperlink[1]. As the Applicant has got the date of the Board’s Decision wrong and originally named DI as a second putative respondent (which is incorrect), 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 threats from loan shark with triad connection starting from 2011. According to the Board’s Decision, she was in Mainland China from March 2012 to March 2017. She entered Hong Kong illegally in 2017 for work. Having been arrested by the Hong Kong Police on 25 May 2017, she was voluntarily repatriated to Vietnam on 15 June 2017. In this process, she did not apply for non-refoulement protection. Having spent around three years in Vietnam, the applicant came to Hong Kong in March 2020 illegally again, claiming that she saw the same loan shark people at where she worked. She sought non-refoulement protection in Hong Kong in April 2020.

3.By reason of the above history, the Board did not find the Applicant’s claimed risk of ill-treatment credible. In any event, it was considered an internal relocation alternative reasonable and available. The appeal/petition against DI’s tier-1 rejection of the claim was therefore dismissed.

4.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 acknowledged she had got the date of the decision sought to be reviewed wrong and said she just wished to stay in Hong Kong because she was still indebted to a moneylender.

5.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.

6.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 Nguyen Thi Kim Chi 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 17892/21/5/5/V2835 Director of Immigration Putative Interested Party’s ref. no.: QA T/C 719/20 (formerly RBCZ 10628/20) 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/HCAL001259_2021_files/the_Board's_Decision.pdf