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

Case No.HCAL 1520/2021[2026] HKCFI 2861

Court

High Court CFI

Date21 May 2026

Judge—

Case Document

100%

HCAL 1520/2021

[2026] HKCFI 2861

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST No. 1520 of 2021

BETWEEN
	Nguyen Thi Van	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 Board as the putative respondent, the Board’s Decision dated 20 October 2021 as the decision sought to be challenged and 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 2 November 2021, the Applicant sought leave for judicial review of a “USM” decision dated 20 October 2021. According to the exhibit of the supporting affirmation, the decision sought to be challenged should be the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-Refoulement Claims Petition Office (“the Board”) made on that day (“the Board’s Decision”). The Board’s Decision was actually made after an oral hearing on 10 August 2021 of the Applicant’s appeal/petition from the Director of Immigration (“DI”)’s first-tier decision dated 9 February 2021. 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. Her claim for non-refoulment protection arose from threats from a creditor. The Board assessed that the risk of ill-treatment to the Applicant was low as (i) the Applicant had not been physically injured; (ii) her family members living in her family home were approached by the creditor but one of them was only asked to provide the Applicant’s new phone number. Future risk was found to be not meeting the threshold for invoking the applicable grounds under the non-refoulement regime. Sufficient State protection was found to be present, no involvement of Government officials in the alleged risk was found and reasonable internal relocation alternative was found available.

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 has nothing to say.

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 Nguyen Thi Van 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 17643/21/2/59/V2740 Director of Immigration Putative Interested Party’s ref. no.: QA T/C 984/20 (formerly RBCZ 152/20) 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/HCAL001520_2021_files/the_Board's_Decision.pdf