Case Document

100%

HCAL 2086/2025

[2026] HKCFI 5318

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST NO 2086 OF 2025

BETWEEN

	Pham Chi Thong	1^st Applicant
	Tran Thi Lien	2^nd 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:

Leave for the 1^st and 2^nd Applicants to apply for judicial review be refused.

Observations for the Applicants:

1.The Applicants are husband and wife and nationals of Vietnam in their early 30s who arrived in Hong Kong on 9 September 2024 as visitors with permission to remain as such up to 16 September 2024 when they did not depart and instead overstayed, and more than 6 months later on 31 March 2025 they surrendered to the Immigration Department and jointly raised a non-refoulement claim for protection on the basis that if they returned to Vietnam they would be harmed or killed by their creditor for failing to repay their debts. They were subsequently released on recognizance pending the determination of their claim.

2.The 1^st Applicant was born and raised in Xa Doc Lap, Huyen Hung Ha, Tinh Thai Binh, Vietnam, while the 2^nd Applicant was born and raised in Phuong Mong Duong, Thanh Pho Cam Pha, Tinh Quang Ninh Vietnam.

3.They first met as small children as their families knew each other, and started dating when in university, and after graduation from university they worked for the same telecom company, got married in 2016 and made their home in Hanoi.

4.In 2023 they quitted their jobs and started their own shrimp farm business in the 2^nd Applicant’s home district in Phuong Mong Duong with the help of a loan borrowed from some local money-lender to be repaid within one year and with monthly interests payments which they initially managed to make from their savings and business income.

5.However, in March 2024 they lost their business after their shrimp stock was wiped out by some illness due to polluted water, and when they started to default in their loan repayment, their creditor sent men to threaten them, whereupon they fled back to Hanoi to hide from their creditor by working in odd jobs to make their living, during which they took a trip to Thailand for several days to stay away from the stress of running away from their creditor.

6.Upon their return to Vietnam, they later heard that their creditor had sent men everywhere looking for them, and so they decided that it was no longer safe to remain in Vietnam, and on 9 September 2024 they departed for Hong Kong and subsequently overstayed, and some 6 months later on 31 March 2025 they surrendered to the Immigration Department and raised their non-refoulement claim for protection, for which they jointly completed a Non-refoulement Claim Form (“NCF”) on 5 June 2025 and attended screening interview before the Immigration Department with legal representation from the Duty Lawyer Service (“DLS”).

7.By a Notice of Decision dated 4 July 2025 the Director of Immigration (“Director”) rejected the Applicants’ claim on all the applicable grounds including risk of torture under Part VIIC of the Immigration Ordinance, Cap 115 (“Torture Risk”), risk of their 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 of all the relevant circumstances of the Applicants’ claim and assessed the level of risk of harm from their creditor and followers upon their return to Vietnam 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 their creditor to seriously harm or kill them other than to press them to repay their debts, that in any event it was a private dispute between them and their creditor 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”) show that reasonable internal relocation alternatives are available in Vietnam with a large population of 100 million people spread across a vast territory of more than 330,000 square kilometers that it would not be unduly harsh for both Applicants as able-bodied highly educated adults with working experiences to move to other areas of the country away from their home district in large cities such as Nha Trang or Da Nang where it would be difficult if not impossible for their creditor to locate either of them.

9.On 10 July 2025, the Applicants lodged their appeals to the Torture Claims Appeal Board (“Board”) against the Director’s decision, and for which they together attended an oral hearing on 21 August 2025 before the Board during which both of them gave evidence and answered questions raised of their claims by the Adjudicator for the Board. On 10 September 2025, their appeals were dismissed by the Board which also confirmed the Director’s decision.

10.In its decision[1], the Board accepted the Applicants’ claim of threats from their creditor over their unpaid debts but found no reliable evidence of any real intention of their creditor to seriously harm or kill them other than to press them to repay their debts, and that in any event it was a private monetary dispute between them and their creditor only without any official involvement that state or police protection would be available to the Applicants upon their return to Vietnam if resorted to as well as reasonable internal relocation alternatives for them to move safely to other parts of the country away from their home district without any risk of being located by their creditor that their claims for non-refoulement protection failed on all applicable grounds.

11.On 16 September 2025, the Applicants jointly filed their Form 86 for leave to apply for judicial review of the Board’s decision, but no ground for seeking relief was given in their Form or their supporting affirmation of the same date to which they just attached a copy of the decision but without putting forth any proper ground for their intended challenge, nor did they request any oral hearing for their application. As such, and in the absence of any error of law or irrationality or procedural unfairness in their process before the Board or in its decision being clearly and properly identified by the Applicants, I do not find any reasonably arguable basis for their 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 his 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 Applicants’ case, the fact is that it has been established by both the Director and the Board in their respective decisions that the risk of harm in their claim if real is a localized one and that it is not unreasonable or unsafe for them to relocate to other part of Vietnam, there is simply no justification to afford them with non-refoulement protection in Hong Kong: see TK v Jenkins & Anor [2013] 1 HKC 526.

14.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 Applicants’ claims.

15.It is also of note that the 2^nd Applicant has recently on 17 August 2026 filed an affirmation requesting to withdraw her application as her problem in her home country has been resolved that it is now safe for her to return to Vietnam.

16.In the premises, as I am for the given reasons not satisfied that there is any prospect of success in the Applicants’ intended application for judicial review, I therefore refuse to grant leave and accordingly dismiss their application.

Dated the 22^nd day of September 2026

(Chung Lai Fan, Christine)
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 22 September 2026 Pham Chi Thong Tran Thi Lien 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 22 September 2026 Torture Claims Appeal Board Putative Respondent’s ref. no.: USM 26713 USM 26714 Director of Immigration Putative Interested Party’s ref. no.: QA T/C 1084/25 (Formerly RBCZ 5000985/25) QA T/C 1085/25 (Formerly RBCZ 5000986/25) Department of Justice, Senior Assistant Law Officer (Civil Law) (Civil Litigation Unit 2)