Case Document

100%

HCAL 1618/2023

[2026] HKCFI 4571

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST NO 1618 OF 2023

BETWEEN

	Patchakhieo Sirintra	Applicant
	and
	Torture Claims Appeal Board	Putative
		Respondent
	and
	Director of Immigration	Putative
		Interested Party

Application for leave to apply for judicial review

NOTIFICATION of the Judge’s decision (Order 53, rule 3)

Following:

consideration of the documents only; or

consideration of the documents and oral submissions by the applicant or counsel in open court;

Order by Deputy High Court Judge Michael WONG:

1. On this court’s own motion, the name of the putative respondent be amended to “Torture Claims Appeal Board”, and “Director of Immigration” be added as the putative interested party.

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

Observations for the applicant:

The Leave Application

1.By way of Form 86 dated 7 September 2023 and filed on 11 September 2023, the applicant applied for leave to apply for judicial review (“the Leave Application”) in respect of the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board (“the Board”) dated 31 August 2023. The Board’s Decision can be viewed in the following hyperlink:-

https://legalref.judiciary.hk/doc/judg/html/vetted/other/en/2023/HCAL001618_2023_files/the_Board's_Decision.pdf

2.The Board rejected the applicant’s claim for non-refoulement protection on all the applicable grounds under the Unified Screening Mechanism (“the USM”). Hence, the Board dismissed the applicant’s appeal/petition against the decision of the Director dated 28 October 2022 and confirmed the same, which rejected the applicant’s non-refoulement claim.

Amendments

3.In Form 86, the applicant named “TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS, PETITION OFFICE” as the putative respondent, and did not name any putative interested party.

4.In fact, only the Board should be named as the putative respondent, and the Director should be named as the putative interested party.

5.The Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office is just an office which provides administrative and secretariat support to the adjudicators of the Board and should not be named as a putative respondent at all.

6.Thus, on this court’s own motion, the name of the putative respondent is amended to “Torture Claims Appeal Board”, and “Director of Immigration” is added as the putative interested party.

The applicant’s case

7.It is not necessary for this court to repeat the details of the applicant’s case here as the same were set out in the Board’s Decision, which can be viewed in the hyperlink above.

8.In sum, the applicant claimed for non-refoulement protection because if refouled to Thailand, she would be harmed, ill-treated or killed by a moneylender named Nares and his men for failing to repay the loan she borrowed with her former business partner Kannika, who disappeared.

Disposal on paper

9.The applicant did not request for an oral hearing of the Leave Application. This court is also satisfied that the Leave Application can be disposed of based on the written materials before this court. Hence, the Leave Application is dealt with on paper.

Grounds for judicial review

10.The applicant is required to identify clearly the grounds for the intended judicial review (see Ho Loy & Another v Director of Environmental Protection, HCAL 21 of 2015, dated 22.12.2016).

11.The applicant did not advance any ground for her intended judicial review in Form 86, nor in her supporting affirmation dated 7 September 2023.

Discussion

12.The role of the court in judicial review is not to re-assess the non-refoulement claims afresh. The primary decision-makers in a claim for non-refoulement are the Director and the Board. They alone assess the evidence and find facts including those relating to the matters allegedly giving rise to the non-refoulement claim, risk of harm, availability of state protection and viability of internal relocation. The court will scrutinize the Board’s decision and intervene by way of judicial review only for errors of law, procedural unfairness, or irrationality (see Nupur Mst v Director of Immigration [2018] HKCA 524).

13.Thus, despite the fact that the applicant failed to advance any ground for the intended judicial review, this court will scrutinize the Board’s Decision for any errors of law, procedural unfairness, or irrationality as aforesaid.

14.In assessing the appeal/petition by the applicant, the Board held an oral hearing on 28 July 2023. The applicant was present and was thus given the chance to present her case to the Board in person.

15.As can be seen from the Board’s Decision, the Board analysed the applicant’s claim in detail, and gave full and detailed reasoning in rejecting the applicant’s claims. Its assessment on the credibility of the applicant’s claims and evidence were laid out in paragraph 42 of the Board’s Decision, and it is not necessary to repeat the same here.

16.In gist, the Board found many inconsistencies and conflicts that raised serious credibility issues in the applicant’s claim. There was insufficient support of credible evidence for the Board to conclude that there would be risk of physical harm to her personally on her return to Thailand.

17.Further, the Board found that even if the applicant’s evidence were accepted to be true, which the Board had rejected, the applicant did not receive serious ill-treatments other than verbal threats and the accidental arm injury from the creditor and his associates. Her parents were not physically harmed by the three men from the creditor, and her son had not been located by the creditor. The applicant’s dispute with the creditor was only a private one. The ground that the applicant relied on could not be classified under any of the Convention reasons. The creditor was not a state agent and there was no evidence of state acquiescence.

18.Moreover, the Board found that in any event, the Thai government had established law to combat illegal moneylender charging exorbitant rate of interest, and the Thai police should be able to offer the applicant protection on her return.

19.Further, the Board had laid out its reasons in paragraph 51 of the Board’s Decision for the finding that the applicant had the option of internal relocation to other parts of Thailand, and it was both logical and reasonable for the applicant to find employment in one of the big cities in Thailand.

20.Thus, the Board concluded that the applicant’s claim for non-refoulement protection failed on all the applicable grounds under the USM.

21.The finding of facts relating to a non-refoulement claim, including the assessment of evidence, country of origin information and risk of harm, was solely within the ambit of the Board in dealing with the applicant’s appeal/petition. This court finds nothing wrong or unreasonable in the way the Board reached its decision.

22.Having rigorously examined the Board’s Decision and the evidence with anxious scrutiny, this court is satisfied that the Board had correctly set out the law and key legal principles relating to the applicable grounds under the USM, the burden of proof and the standard of proof. The Board also correctly identified the issues and observed a very high standard of fairness. This court could detect no errors of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the Board’s Decision. The Board’s Decision does satisfy the enhanced Wednesbury test, ie it is not Wednesbury unreasonable or irrational for the Board to reach its decision.

23.As held by the Court of Final Appeal in Po Fun Chan v Winnie Cheung (2007) 10 HKCFAR 676, for the court to grant leave to apply for judicial review, the claim has to be a reasonably arguable claim which enjoys realistic prospects of success. It is the view of this court that the applicant has failed to establish such a claim and hence leave must be refused.

Conclusion

24.For reasons aforesaid, the Leave Application is dismissed.

Dated the 12^th day of August 2026

( Gladys LEE )
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 his 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/Handed to the applicant/the applicant’s solicitors on: 12/08/2026 Applicant’s ref. no: Nil		Sent/Handed 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: 12/08/2026 Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office Putative respondent’s ref. no.: USM 21130 Director of Immigration Putative interested party’s ref. no.: QA T/C 921/22 (Formerly RBCZ 5000814/22) Department of Justice, Senior Assistant Law Officer (Civil Law) (Civil Litigation Unit 2)