TRAN THI THU HA v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE [Decision on Leave Application]

bjbjJ HCAL 1547/2021 [2026] HKCFI 1393 IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST No. 1547 of 2021 BETWEEN Tran Thi Thu Ha Applicant and Torture Claims Appeal Board/ Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office 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 documents only; or consideration of documents and Applicant being absent in open court; Order by Deputy High Court Judge K. W. Lung: Leave to apply for Judicial Review be refused. Observation for the Applicant: THE APPLICATION The applicant applies for leave to apply for judicial review of the Decision dated 7 October 2021 of the Torture Claims Appeal Board ( the Board s Decision). The applicant did not ask for a hearing. The Board s Decision is in Chinese. This Form CALL-1 is in English because the applicant has submitted an affirmation in English. The applicant The applicant is a national of Vietnam. She is an illegal immigrant. She lodged a non-refoulement claim on the basis that, if refouled, she will be harmed or killed by her creditor because she was unable to repay her loan. Details of her claim are set out in the Board s Decision. See hyperlink HYPERLINK "https://legalref.judiciary.hk/doc/judg/html/vetted/other/en/2021/HCAL001547_2021_files/the_Board's_Decision.pdf" https://legalref.judiciary.hk/doc/judg/html/vetted/other/en/2021/HCAL001547_2021_files/the_Board's_Decision.pdf . The Director s Decision The Director considered the applicant s claim in relation to the following risks: risk of torture under Part VIIC of the Immigration Ordinance, Cap. 115, ( the Ordinance Torture risk ); 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 ); 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 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 ). By way of the Notice of Decision dated 29 December 2020 ( Director s Decision ), the Director dismissed the applicant s claim on all applicable risks because it was unsubstantiated. The Board s Decision The applicant appealed the Director s Decision to the Board. On 30 April 2021, the Board conducted an oral hearing for her. The applicant had given evidence and answered the Board s questions. Having considered the evidence, the Board made the findings below. There was no evidence that she will be tortured if she returns to Vietnam. [185] There was no evidence that state was involved. [187]-[188] State protection will be available if she returns to Vietnam. [202] Internal relocation is viable. [204]-[208] For the above reasons, the Board dismissed her appeal and affirmed the Director s Decision. Application for leave to apply for judicial review of the Board s Decision The applicant has filed Form 86 dated 8 November 2021 for leave to apply for judicial review of the Board s Decision. In support of her application, the applicant has not raised any specific ground to challenge the Board s Decision. DISCUSSION 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 applicant s 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, 40 and Nupur Mst v Director of Immigration [2018] HKCA 524, 14 (1). The Court will bear in mind that the Board s Decisions should be examined with rigorous examination and anxious scrutiny. 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. The applicant has raised no valid ground to challenge the Board s Decision. The applicant fails to show that she has any realistic prospect of success in her proposed judicial review of the Board s Decision. DISPOSITION I refuse to grant leave to the applicant to apply for judicial review of the Board s Decision. Accordingly, I dismiss her application. Dated the 13th day of March 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 Applicants: 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 13/3/2026 Tran Thi Thu Ha 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 13/3/2026 Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office Putative Respondent s ref. no.: USM 17531/21/1/27/V2692 Director of Immigration Putative Interested Party s ref. no.: VRD/27/1/20 (CZ) Department of Justice, Senior Assistant Law Officer (Civil Law) (Civil Litigation Unit 2) Form CALL-1 PAGE \* MERGEFORMAT }l^lK9+9 h&C6 hew. hew. gd{q gd{q gd{q ZM<<4 hew. hew. ytU?w ytU?w ytU?w ytU?w ytU?w ytU?w ytU?w gd{q gd{q gd{q ytU?w e gd{q gd{q hn"3 s``Y xgxgxg ytU?w ytU?w ytU?w ytU?w ytU?w ytU?w ytU?w ytU?w phFx ph`^\ [Content_Types].xml _rels/.rels theme/theme/themeManager.xml K Y, sQ}# theme/theme/theme1.xml z)P -zh 83;3;{ ]XS1IH 0H!A Ssd- ]A3U mH#[ A\;> K}*7c ^I77 >g^* y')f ZI$G ,{uk< WV j k3 zjv3,j X1? Xjg YIsR3 gm~x theme/theme/_rels/themeManager.xml.rels 5 6?$Q K(M&$R(.1 [Content_Types].xmlPK _rels/.relsPK theme/theme/themeManager.xmlPK theme/theme/theme1.xmlPK theme/theme/_rels/themeManager.xml.relsPK <?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" standalone="yes"?> <a:clrMap xmlns:a="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/main" bg1="lt1" tx1="dk1" bg2="lt2" tx2="dk2" accent1="accent1" accent2="accent2" accent3="accent3" accent4="accent4" accent5="accent5" accent6="accent6" hlink="hlink" folHlink="folHlink"/> b Bo b Bo V?@k GQoU KimWan Lung Normal.dotm Tse SiuHin, Klein Microsoft Office Word Title _PID_HLINKS Microsoft Word 97-2003 Document MSWordDoc Word.Document.8