NGUYEN THI THUY v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION

HCAL 306/2017

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW PROCEEDINGS

NO 306 OF 2017

______________

______________

______________

D E C I S I O N

______________

1.  This is an application for leave to apply for judicial review. According to Form 86 filed by the applicant, the decision proposed to be challenged is that of the Director of Immigration (“the Director”). The date of that decision has however not been identified.

2.  Among the documents filed in connection with this application is a copy of the Director’s decision dated 15 July 2016 (“the Director’s decision”).  By that decision, the Director rejected the applicant’s claim for non-refoulement against the applicant’s deportation back to her home country, Vietnam.  This must have been the decision referred to in Form 86.

3.  Further to the Director’s decision, there is also included in the filed documents a decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board (“the Board”) dated 4 May 2017 which in essence dismissed the applicant’s appeal against the Director’s decision (“the Board’s decision”).  It can also be inferred that this application also seeks to challenge the Board’s decision (although Form 86 makes no reference to it).

4.  No grounds on which relief is sought have been given in Form 86 (contrary to the requirements of RHC Ord 53 r 3(2)(a)(iii), Cap 4A).  The applicant’s affirmation filed in support of this application merely asserts that she would be killed by the local gangsters if she is deported back to Vietnam.  The affirmation does not verify the facts (put forth earlier by the applicant in support of her non-refoulement claim) summarized in the Director’s decision and the Board’s decision (collectively “the challenged decisions”).

5.  The applicant’s case purportedly in support of the assertion that she would be killed if she returns to Vietnam can be stated briefly.  There was a time when the applicant was reasonably well off by reason of her successful estate agent business in Vietnam.  A downturn of the Vietnam property market resulted in not only her business failure, but also her failure to repay a loan owed to a local loan shark.  The applicant claims that the loan shark assaulted her and threatened to kill her because the applicant failed to repay the loan.  The Vietnam police did not render any help to the applicant. Upon her mother’s advice, the applicant left Vietnam for China in December 2014, and ultimately arrived in Hong Kong.

6.  This application suffers from various procedural and/or evidential defects/irregularities (see para 2 to 4 above).  Irrespective of these inadequacies, a perusal of the challenged decisions shows that they have considered the applicant’s case in considerable detail.  There is no detectable error of law on the face of the record.  There is no indication of other irregularities (whether procedural or otherwise) either.

7.  In these circumstances, I am not satisfied that this application for leave has crossed the requisite threshold regarding merits, and therefore refuse to give leave to apply.