DANG THI TRANG v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE [Decision on Leave Application]

HCAL 331/2022 [2026] HKCFI 1778 IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST No. 331 of 2022 BETWEEN Dang Thi Trang Applicant and Torture Claims Appeal Board/ Non-Refoulement Claims Petition Office 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 (Non-refoulement Claims) Connie Lee: Form 86 be amended, naming only the Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office as the Putative Respondent and the Director of Immigration as the Putative Interested Party. Extension of time for the application for leave to apply for judicial review of the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office dated 7 January 2022 be refused. The application herein for leave to apply for judicial review be dismissed. Observations for the Applicant: Introduction By Form 86 filed on 12 May 2022, the Applicant seeks leave to apply for judicial review (the “Leave Application”) of the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office (the “Board”) dated 7 January 2022 (the “Board’s Decision”). By that decision, the Board confirmed the decision of the Director of Immigration dated 11 February 2021 (the “Director’s Decision”), which had rejected her non-refoulement claim on all applicable grounds under the Unified Screening Mechanism (USM). The Applicant’s background, the basis of her claim and the arguments she advanced had been set out in detail in the Board’s Decision. It is not necessary for me to repeat the same here. Unless otherwise specified, the abbreviations and descriptions used in the Board’s Decision, the hyperlink to which is included below, are also adopted herein. The Applicant did not attend the oral hearing. I have considered the merits of the Leave Application based on the materials available before me. Discussion The Leave Application was lodged out of time under Order 53 rule 4 of the Rules of High Court, Cap. 4A. In considering whether to extend time, the Court shall have regard to (1) the length of delay; (2) the reason for delay; (3) the merits of the intended application; and (4) any prejudice that may be occasioned to the applicant if leave is refused as against the prejudice to the respondent and the public administration if leave is granted and (5) question of general public importance. First, the delay in question is around 1 month. However, the Applicant has not applied for an extension of time nor provided any explanation for the delay in her affirmation. Second, I am not persuaded that the Applicant’s intended application for judicial review is reasonably arguable with any realistic prospect of success. Judicial review does not operate as a further avenue of appeal. The Leave Application operates as a “filtering” process and there is no requirement or expectation to give elaborate reasons for my decision. In seeking to challenge the Board’s Decision, the Applicant ought to have clearly and precisely identified the grounds relied upon in the Form 86 and in her supporting affirmation. As matter stands, apart from contending the Board’s Decision and the Director’s Decision are wrong or unsafe, the Applicant has failed to identify any valid or effective public law grounds. In view of the seriousness of the issues involved, I have reminded myself of the enhanced standard required by law. Despite the Applicant did not advance any valid ground for the intended judicial review, I have scrutinized the Board’s Decision for any errors of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality. The primary decision makers are the Director of Immigration and the Board and the Court should not usurp the role of the Board. Assessment of evidence, country of origin information (COI) materials, risk of harm, state protection and viability of internal relocation are primarily within the province of the Board (and the Director of the Immigration). The Board was acutely aware of the Applicant’s claim that she will face serious harm if she is returned to Vietnam because she owned a moneylender a debt which she could not repay. It had assessed the material facts and evidence of the Applicant’s claim including the COI materials and found that her account was not credible. In particular, the Applicant did not adduce any support for the material assertions made by her. The Board was thus entitled to reject the factual basis of her claim including her case that she was indebted to the Lender the Debt and that she had been assaulted by the Lender. In any case, the Board did and was entitled to find (1) the fear of the Applicant was not well-founded; (2) there is an objectively low future risk of harm upon her return to Vietnam; (3) reasonably sufficient state protection is available and (4) if necessary, it is also feasible for the Applicant to reside and work at places other than her home area in Vietnam. There is simply nothing to indicate the Board had failed to take into account any relevant matters. I also do not find any error of law or procedural unfairness or irrationality on the part of the Board in the assessment and rejection of the Applicant’s claim. Finally, I discern no prejudice in refusing to allow the Applicant to proceed with an application that is, in any event, wholly unmeritorious. Conversely, allowing her to do so would disrupt and undermine the proper administration and cause prejudice to the Putative Respondent. For completeness, I also do not accept (if so contended by the Applicant) that the matter raises any question of general public importance requiring determination by the Court. Conclusion I see no good reason to extend time for the Applicant to apply for leave to seek judicial review. I accordingly dismiss the Leave Application. Dated the 13th day of April 2026 (Klein Tse) 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 13 April 2026 Dang Thi Trang 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 13 April 2026 Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-Refoulement Claims Petition Office Putative Respondent’s ref. no.: USM 17669/21/2/85/V2756 Director of Immigration Putative Interested Party’s ref. no.: QA T/C 1003/20 (formerly RBCZ 10969/20) Department of Justice, Senior Assistant Law Officer (Civil Law) (Civil Litigation Unit 2) Form CALL-1