Sawangwong Anonglak and Another v. Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office

HCAL 1646/2025

[2026] HKCFI 4664

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST No. 1646 of 2025

BETWEEN

Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review
NOTIFICATION of the Judge’s decision (Ord. 53 r. 3)

Following;

	consideration of documents only;  or
	consideration of documents and Applicants being absent in open court;

Order by Deputy High Court Judge K.W. Lung:

Leave for the Applicants to apply for Judicial Review be refused.

Observations for the Applicant:

THE APPLICATION

1.The applicants are husband and wife.  They are illegal immigrants.

2.The applicants jointly apply for leave to apply for judicial review of the Decision dated 17 December 2024 of the Torture Claims Appeal Board (“the Board’s Decision”).

3.The applicants asked for a hearing.  However, they were absent at the hearing on 3 August 2026.  I shall deal with their application on the paper.

4.Pursuant to Order 20, rule 8 and Order 53, rule 3(6) of the Rules of the High Court, Form 86 is amended to the effect that the proposed respondent is the Board and the Director of Immigration is the interested party.

The applicants

5.The applicants are nationals of Thailand.

6.The applicants lodged a non-refoulement claim, on the basis that, if refouled, they will be harmed or killed by their creditors because they were unable to repay their loans.

7.Details of the facts are set out in the Board’s Decision.  See hyperlink. https://legalref.judiciary.hk/doc/judg/html/vetted/other/en/2025/HCAL001646_2025_files/the_Board's_Decision.pdf

The Director’s Decision

8.The Director considered the applicant’s claim in relation to the following risks:

a.  risk of torture under Part VIIC of the Immigration Ordinance, Cap. 115, (“the Ordinance”) (“Torture risk”);

b.  risk of violation of the right to life under Article 2 of Section 8 of the Hong Kong Bill of Rights Ordinance, Cap. 383 (“HKBOR”) (“BOR 2 risk”);

c.  risk of torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment (“CIDTP”) under Article 3 of Section 8 of the HKBOR (“BOR 3 risk”); and

d.  risk of persecution by reference to the non-refoulement principle under Article 33 of the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees and its 1967 Protocol (“Refugee Convention”) (“Persecution risk”).

9.By way of the Director’s Decision dated 27 September 2024 (“the Director’s Decision”), the Director assessed the applicants’ claims jointly on all applicable grounds and dismissed their claims on all applicable risks because they were unsubstantiated.

The Board’s Decision

10.The applicants appealed the Director’s Decision to the Board.  On 20 November 2024, the Board conducted an oral hearing for their appeals.  They had given evidence and answered the Board’s questions.

11.Having considered the evidence, the Board found that the applicants had provided no evidence to support their claim, that is, the existence of the loans and the threats by the creditors [37]; that it was unconvincing that the creditor intended to kill them [37]; their alleged harm by the creditors was not imminent, their alleged future risk is only speculative, and there was no evidence that the state was involved; that their evidence was not credible [39]; that state protection will be provided if they return to Thailand; and that internal relocation is viable [94].

12.For the reasons above, the Board dismissed their appeal and confirmed the Director’s Decision.

Application for leave to apply for judicial review

13.The applicants filed Form 86 on 22 July 2025 for leave to apply for judicial review of the Board’s Decision.

14.In their affirmation, the applicants stated that they want a hearing.

DISCUSSION

15.The role of this Court is supervisory, meaning that it ensures that the Board complied with the public law requirements in coming to the Board’s Decision on the applicants’ appeal.  The Court will not usurp the fact-finding power vested in the Director and the Board.  See TK v Michael C Jenkins Esq and Director of Immigration [2013] 1 HKC 526 CA, §40 and Nupur Mst v Director of Immigration [2018] HKCA 524, §14 (1).

16.In Re: Kartini [2019] HKCA 1022, 9 September 2019, the Court of Appeal held:

“13. (1) … …Assessment of evidence and COI materials and risk of harm, state protection and viability of internal relocation are primarily within the province of the Board (and the Director). The court will not intervene by way of judicial review unless there are errors of law or procedural unfairness or irrationality in the decision of the Board.”

17.The Court will bear in mind that the Board’s Decision should be examined with rigorous examination and anxious scrutiny.

18.The applicants fail to show that there is any realistic prospect of success in their proposed judicial review.

DISPOSITION

19.I refuse to grant leave to the applicants to apply for judicial review of the Board’s Decision.  Accordingly, I dismiss their joint application.

Dated the 19^th day of August 2026

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

Form CALL-1