Case Document

100%

HCAL 942/2024

[2026] HKCFI 4568

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST NO. 942 OF 2024

BETWEEN

	Kaeolue Pornpimol	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 oral submissions by the Applicant in open court / the Applicant being absent in open court;

Order by Deputy High Court Judge Bruno Chan:

The application for leave to apply for Judicial Review be dismissed.

Observations for the Applicant:

1.The Applicant is a 34-year-old national of Thailand who arrived in Hong Kong on 2 June 2022 as a visitor with permission to remain as such extended up to 3 September 2022 when she did not depart and instead overstayed, and some 10 months later on 20 July 2023 she surrendered to the Immigration Department and raised a non-refoulement claim for protection on the basis that if she returned to Thailand she would be harmed or killed by the creditor of her and her husband over their unpaid debts and/or by her husband over their marital disputes. She was subsequently released on recognizance pending the determination of her claim.

2.The Applicant was born and raised in a village in Nong Bua Sub-district, Khon Kaen, Thailand. After leaving school she worked as a farmer in her home village to make her living.

3.In 2013 she moved to Rayong where she worked in the factory and met her husband who was a fellow worker, and subsequently they got married and raised a family there with their 3 children.

4.In 2015 she and her husband started their side business after work running a cooked food stall with the help of a loan borrowed by her husband from some local money-lender and with her as the guarantor, and for which they were to repay by monthly instalments with interests which they initially managed to make from the business income.

5.However, their food stall business did not fare well by early 2016 it was closed down, and when they defaulted in their loan repayments, their creditor then sent men to threaten them that they either made some payments with whatever they could or went into hiding and later by moving from town to town, during which they were often in quarrels caused by the resultant stress of facing the threats from their creditor.

6.In June 2022 the Applicant decided to take a trip to Hong Kong for a visit, during which she received telephone calls from her husband who angrily accused her of running away from their financial problems and leaving him to face the threats from their creditor by himself that he threatened to kill her upon her return, and so the Applicant was afraid to return to Thailand and therefore overstayed in Hong Kong and subsequently raised her non-refoulement claim for protection, for which she completed a Non-refoulement Claim Form (“NCF”) on 22 December 2023 and attended screening interview before the Immigration Department with legal representation from the Duty Lawyer Service (“DLS”).

7.By a Notice of Decision dated 31 January 2024 the Director of Immigration (“Director”) rejected the Applicant’s claim on all the applicable grounds including risk of torture under Part VIIC of the Immigration Ordinance, Cap 115 (“Torture Risk”), risk of her absolute or non-derogable rights under the Hong Kong Bill of Rights Ordinance, Cap 383 (“HKBOR”) being violated including right to life under Article 2 (“BOR 2 Risk”), risk of torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment under Article 3 of HKBOR (“BOR 3 Risk”), and risk of persecution with reference to the non-refoulement principle under Article 33 of the 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees (“Persecution Risk”).

8.In his decision the Director took into account all the relevant circumstances of the Applicant’s claim and assessed the level of risk of harm from her creditor or her husband over their financial disputes upon her return to Thailand as low due to the low intensity and frequency of past ill-treatment from them, that there is no evidence of any real intention of either of them to seriously harm or kill her, that in any event these were private monetary or marital disputes between them only without any official involvement that state or police protection would be available to the Applicant if resorted to, and that reliable and objective Country of Origin Information (“COI”) shows that reasonable internal relocation alternatives are available in Thailand with a large population of 69 million people spread across a vast territory of more than 510,000 square kilometers that it would not be unduly harsh for the Applicant as an able-bodied adult with working experience to move to other areas of the country away from her home district in large cities such as Bangkok or Phuket where it would be difficult if not impossible for anyone to locate her.

9.On 7 February 2024 the Applicant lodged an appeal to the Torture Claims Appeal Board (“Board”) against the Director’s decision, and for which she attended an oral hearing on 13 May 2024 before the Board during which she gave evidence and answered questions raised of her claim by the Adjudicator for the Board. On 30 May 2024 her appeal was dismissed by the Board which also confirmed the Director’s decision.

10.In its decision[1] the Board accepted the Applicant’s claim of threats from her creditor and/or her husband over their personal disputes but found no reliable evidence of any real intention of either of them to seriously harm or kill her other than just angry words and empty threats, and that in any event these were private and personal disputes between her and her creditor/husband only without any official involvement that state or police protection would be available to the Applicant upon her return to Thailand to negate whatever risk of harm from either of them that her claim for non-refoulement protection failed on all applicable grounds.

11.On 14 June 2024 the Applicant filed her Form 86 for leave to apply for judicial review of the Board’s decision, but no ground for seeking relief was given in her Form or her supporting affirmation of the same date to which she just attached a copy of the decision but without putting forth any proper ground for her intended challenge. As such, and in the absence of any error of law or irrationality or procedural unfairness in her process before the Board or in its decision being clearly and properly identified by the Applicant, I do not find any reasonably arguable basis for her intended challenge of the Board’s decision.

12.As has been repeatedly emphasized by the Court of Appeal, judicial review does not operate as a rehearing of a non-refoulement claim when the proper occasion for the Applicant to present and articulate her claim is in the screening process and interview before the Immigration Department and in the process before the Board where the evaluation of the risk of harm is primarily a matter for the Director and the Board as they are entitled to make such evaluation based on the evidence available to them that the court will not usurp their role as primary decision makers in the absence of any legal error or procedural unfairness or irrationality in their decisions being clearly and properly identified by the Applicant, as judicial review is not an avenue for revisiting the assessment by them in the hope that the court may consider the matter afresh: Re Lakhwinder Singh [2018] HKCA 246; Re Daljit Singh [2018] HKCA 328; Re Mudannayakalage Chaminda Pushpa Kumara [2018] HKCA 400; and Nupur Mst v Director of Immigration [2018] HKCA 524.

13.In the Applicant’s case, the Board rejected her claim for the thorough and detailed analysis and reasoning set out in its decision with the benefit of hearing her in her oral evidence and her answers to questions raised of her claim as well as relevant COI, and in the absence of any error of law or procedural unfairness in her process before the Board or in its decision being clearly and properly identified by the Applicant, I do not find any reasonably arguable basis to challenge the finding of the Board.

14.Furthermore, the fact is that it has also been established by the Director in his decision that the risks of harm in the Applicant’s claim if real are localized ones and that it is not unreasonable or unsafe for her to relocate to other part of Thailand, a decision also agreed and confirmed by the Board, there is simply no justification to afford her with non-refoulement protection in Hong Kong: see TK v Jenkins & Anor [2013] 1 HKC 526.

15.Having considered the decisions of both the Director and the Board with rigorous examination and anxious scrutiny, I do not find any error of law or procedural unfairness in either of them, nor any failure on their part to apply high standards of fairness in their consideration and assessment of the Applicant’s claim.

16.Moreover, the Applicant has recently on 10 July 2026 in writing requested to withdraw her application as her issues have been resolved in her home country that she now wants to return to Thailand as soon as possible.

17.In the premises, as I am for the given reasons not satisfied that there is any prospect of success in the Applicant’s intended application for judicial review, and in view of her latest confirmation of no issue for her to return to her home country, I accordingly dismiss her leave application.

Dated the 21^st day of August 2026

(Joyce Ooi)
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 to the Applicant on 21 August 2026 Kaeolue Pornpimol 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 August 2026 Torture Claims Appeal Board Putative Respondent’s ref. no.: USM 22978 Director of Immigration Putative Respondent’s ref. no.: QA T/C 1741/23 (formerly RBCZ 5001754/23) Department of Justice, Senior Assistant Law Officer (Civil Law) (Civil Litigation Unit 2)