PHAM VAN BON v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD [Decision on Leave Application]

HCAL 406/2022 [2024] HKCFI 3601 IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST NO 406 OF 2022 BETWEEN Pham Van Bon Applicant and Torture Claims Appeal Board and Putative Respondent 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; Order by Deputy High Court Judge Bruno Chan: Extension of time for the application for leave to apply for Judicial Review of the decision of Torture Claims Appeal Board dated 27 January 2022 be refused; and The application for leave to apply for Judicial Review be dismissed. Observations for the Applicant: The Applicant is a 57-year-old national of Vietnam who entered Hong Kong illegally on 7 December 2020 and surrendered to the Immigration Department on the same day when he raised a non-refoulement claim for protection on the basis that if he returned to Vietnam he would be harmed or killed by his creditor over his unpaid debts. He was subsequently released on recognizance pending the determination of his claim. The Applicant was born and raised in Thi Tran Phu Thu, Huyen Kinh Mon, Tinh Hai Duong, Vietnam. After leaving school he assisted his parents in their farming, got married and raised a family with 3 children in his home district. In February 2020 he started his own shrimps farming business with the help of a loan borrowed from a local money-lender with interests payments every 3 months, which he initially managed to make from his business income. However, by August 2020 he lost his business due to some plague that wiped out his stocks, and when he defaulted with his interest payments, his creditor sent men to threaten him, and on one occasion those men beat him so violently that his head bled and subsequently required medical treatments. After the beating the Applicant became fearful for his life and fled from his home village to Hanoi, and on 5 December 2020 he departed Vietnam for China, and from there he later sneaked into Hong Kong and raised his non-refoulement claim for protection, for which he completed a Non-refoulement Claim Form (“NCF”) on 22 July 2021 and attended screening interview before the Immigration Department with legal representation from the Duty Lawyer Service (“DLS”). By a Notice of Decision dated 26 August 2021 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 his 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”). In his decision the Director took into account of all the relevant circumstances of the Applicant’s claim and assessed the level of risk of harm from his creditor and followers upon his 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 his creditor to seriously harm or kill him other than to press him to repay his debts, that in any event it was a private monetary dispute between him and his 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 331,000 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 his home district in large cities such as Ho Chi Minh City where it would be difficult if not impossible for to locate him. On 13 September 2021, the Applicant lodged an appeal to the Torture Claims Appeal Board (“Board”) against the Director’s decision, and for which he attended an oral hearing on 4 January 2022 before the Board during which he gave evidence and answered questions raised of his claim by the Adjudicator for the Board. On 27 January 2022, his appeal was dismissed by the Board which also confirmed the Director’s decision. In its decision the Board found material inconsistencies and discrepancies in the Applicant’s evidence that it doubted the credibility of his claim of fear of harm from his creditor that caused him to leave his country to come to Hong Kong to seek protection, that even if his claim were true that there was no reliable evidence of any real intention of his creditor to seriously harm or kill him other than to press him to repay his debts, and that in any event it was a private monetary dispute between the 2 of them only without any official involvement that state or police protection would be available to the Applicant upon his return to Vietnam as well as reasonable internal relocation alternatives for him to move safely to other parts of the country away from his home district without any risk of being located that his claim for non-refoulement protection failed on all applicable grounds. On 30 May 2022 the Applicant filed his Form 86 for leave to apply for judicial review of the Board’s decision, and put forward the following grounds for his intended challenge: (1) That the Board unreasonably assessed that he could relocate to other areas in Vietnam to avoid his creditor well knowing that there will be many difficulties and obstacles that he will have to face due to his poor health, that he is approaching his retirement age, and that he is not an active person that eh will not be able to support himself in his home country; (2) That the Board failed to realize that his creditor has nationwide network and with connections to corrupt government servants and police to locate him wherever he hides in his home country; (3) That the Board’s decision that the Applicant can return to Vietnam without risk is clearly unsafe in failing to realize that his creditor and followers are gangsters who will torture him and kill him over his unpaid debts. By then the Applicant was however out of time with his application, as Order 53 rule 4(1) of the Rules of the High Court, Cap 4A requires that an application for leave to apply for judicial review be made promptly and in any event within three months from the day when grounds for the application first arose unless the Court considers that there is good reason to extend the period within which the application shall be made. As the last day of the three-month period for him to file his Form 86 fell on 27 April 2022, the Applicant was therefore more than 1 month late with his application, and in considering whether to extend time, the Court shall have regard to (i) the length of the delay; (ii) the reason for the delay; (iii) the merits of the intended application; and (iv) any prejudice to the putative respondent and to public administration: AW v Director of Immigration [2016] 2 HKC 393. In the Applicant’s case, a delay of more than 1 month must be considered as substantial and inordinate, for which he did not provide any explanation or reasons in his Form or affirmation, nor was he able to do so at the hearing of his application when he just kept saying that he does not know anything about legal proceedings and that he has not committed any crime in Hong Kong to warrant his detention by the Immigration Department. As the record shows that the decision was sent on the same day of 27 January 2022 to the Applicant’s then reported address without being returned through undelivered post, and in the absence of any explanation from the Applicant, I am unable to see any good reason or justification for his serious delay with his application. As for the merits, if any, of his intended application, those grounds put forward by the Applicant are all just some bare and vague assertions containing a few key words or phrases but without any particulars or specifics or elaborations as to how they apply to his case or how the Board or the Adjudicator had erred in the decision, or in what way was the decision unfair or unreasonable in the Board’s assessment as to internal relocation in the absence of any reliable evidence from the Applicant in support of his bare assertions and that the Board had clearly and properly relied on relevant COI in its assessments. As such, and as none of these assertions were properly elaborated or presented with any relevant particulars or specifics by the Applicant either in his Form or at the hearing of his application, I do not find any of them reasonably arguable for his intended challenge or any merits in his intended application. 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. In the Applicant’s 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 his claim if real is a localized one and that it is not unreasonable or unsafe for him to relocate to other part of Vietnam, there is simply no justification to afford him with non-refoulement protection in Hong Kong: see TK v Jenkins & Anor [2013] 1 HKC 526. In the premises, and 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. For all these reasons I am not satisfied that there is any prospect of success in the Applicant’s intended application for judicial review, and in the absence of any good reason for his serious delay, I refuse to extend time and accordingly dismiss his leave application. Dated the 24th day of December 2024 (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 24 December 2024 Pham Van Bon 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 24 December 2024 Torture Claims Appeal Board Putative Respondent’s ref. no.: USM 18734/21/9/86/V3056 Director of Immigration Putative Interested Party’s ref. no.: QA T/C 1400/21 (Formerly RBCZ 18/21) Department of Justice, Senior Assistant Law Officer (Civil Law) (Civil Litigation Unit 2) ____________________________________________________________________________ Form CALL-1