Vu Duc Anh v. Torture Claims Appeal Board

Case No.HCAL 237/2023[2026] HKCFI 4527

Court

High Court CFI

Date18 Aug 2026

Judge—

Case Document

100%

HCAL 237/2023

[2026] HKCFI 4527

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST No 237 of 2023

BETWEEN

	Vu Duc Anh	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 (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 Andrew Li :

1.  Extension of time to file the Form 86 be refused; and

2.  The Applicant’s Form 86 be amended to name the Torture Claims Appeal Board as the putative respondent and the Director of Immigration as the putative interested party; and

3.  Leave to apply for judicial review be dismissed.

Observations for the Applicant:

1.By a Form 86 filed on 16 February 2023, the applicant sought leave for judicial review of the decision of the Director of Immigration (“the Director”) dated 13 December 2021 (“the Director’s Decision”).

2.According to a copy of the decision by the Torture Claims Appeal Board (“the Board”) dated 22 June 2022 (“the Board’s Decision”) exhibited to the applicant’s supporting affirmation, the applicant originally lodged an appeal/petition with the Board (also performing the function of Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office) on 22 December 2021 against the Director’s Decision rejecting his non-refoulement claim. On 16 June 2022, the applicant sent a letter to the Board saying that he would like to withdraw his appeal/petition because he was safe to return to his home country Vietnam. The Board was satisfied that the application was made out of his own free will and the applicant understood the consequences of the withdrawal. The Board’s Decision accepted that there was good reason for the withdrawal, dismissed the appeal/petition and confirmed the Director’s original decision accordingly.

3.Almost 8 months after the withdrawal of the appeal/petition and its acceptance by the Board’s Decision, the applicant filed the Form 86. In it, he challenged the Director’s Decision but not that of the Board’s.

4.The application was seriously out of time. There was also completely no explanation as to why he withdrew the appeal/petition in the first place, got the withdrawal accepted and then sought to change his position some 8 months after. He cannot challenge the Board’s acceptance of his withdrawal and further attempt to reinstate his withdrawn challenge against Director’s Decision by way of this judicial review. This is not permissible. The applicant can at most go back to the Board seeking to argue that the withdrawal on 16 June 2022 was invalid (see Hussain Tasawar v Betty Kwan (Adjudicator) [2017] 2 HKLRD 567). There is nothing in the documents showing that he had done that or attempted to do that.

5.The applicant did not attend the oral hearing of this court fixed for the case. There are no merits in this application at all. Extension of time must be refused. The application is dismissed.

Dated the 18^th day of August 2026

(Cheung Ho Yat, Annson)
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 18/8/2026 Vu Duc Anh 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 18/8/2026 Torture Claims Appeal Board Putative Respondent’s ref. no.: USM 19546/21/12/194/V3323 Director of Immigration Putative Interested Party’s ref. no.: QA T/C 2028/21 (formerly RBCZ/10991/21) [T5I4] Department of Justice, Senior Assistant Law Officer (Civil Law) (Civil Litigation Unit 2)

Form CALL-1

Cites 1 case

Cases cited in this judgment

Hussain Tasawar v. Betty Kwan, Adjudicator (Torture Petitions) of the Petition Team of the Security Bureau

[2017] 2 HKLRD 567 · Court of First Instance

17 Mar 2017

Full analysis