Case Detail

HCAL 1135/2020

[2025] HKCFI 5212

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST

NO 1135 OF 2020

_____________

BETWEEN

	Dao Xuan Trung	Applicant
	and
	Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office	Putative Respondent
	and
	Director of Immigration	Putative Interested Party

____________

Before:

Deputy High Court Judge (Non-refoulement Claims) Val Chow in Chambers

Date of Hearing:	30 October 2025
Date of Decision:	13 November 2025

______________

D E C I S I O N

______________

Introduction

1. This is an application for extension of time to appeal (the “Application”) against my decision dated 11 August 2025 (the “Decision”) where I refused leave to the Applicant to apply for judicial review in respect of the Applicant’s non-refoulement claim^{^[1]}.

2. The Application was made by summons dated 26 September 2025. As the running of time for appeal was suspended during the August summer vacation^{^[2]}, the deadline for appeal fell on 15 September 2025^{^[3]}. Hence, there was a relatively short delay of 11 days.

Analysis

3. In considering whether a time extension to appeal should be granted, it is well established that the court shall have regard to (a) the length of the delay; (ii) the reason for the delay; (iii) the prospect of the intended appeal; and (iv) the prejudice to the respondent if extension of time were granted, see Re Gurung Min Bahadur[2018] HKCA 226 and Re Saqlain Muhammad[2018] HKCA 346.

4. Even in the case where the delay is a short one, the arguability of the intended appeal is an important consideration, see: Re MK HCMP 2609/2016, 10 January 2017; Chu On Fong Winter v The Appeal Panel (Housing) HCMP 982/2017, 20 July 2017; Islam Raja Rais v Director of Immigration HCMP 881/2017, 26 June 2017; Gurung Min Bahadur[2018] HKCA 226.

5. Despite the fact that a notice of hearing was sent to the Applicant’s address[4] on 8 October 2025, the Applicant failed to attend the hearing of the Application on 30 October 2025. On the basis of the plaintiff’s want of prosecution alone, I am prepared to dismiss the Application.

6. In any event, even if I were to accept the Applicant’s explanation that the delay was unintentional and caused by an accidental injury (as claimed in his affirmation in support of the Applicant), I am not prepared to grant any time extension as there is no indication that the appeal has any prospect of success. The Applicant only made a general assertion that he “has a good ground of appeal that was not necessarily considered at the stage of applying for leave for judicial review”. However, no such ground was identified at all.

7. The Application is accordingly dismissed.

	(Val Chow)
	Deputy High Court Judge
	(Non-refoulement Claims)

The Applicant, unrepresented and absent

[1] Although the relief sought in the summons was for leave to appeal the Decision, it is clear from the Applicant’s supporting affirmation that he was seeking leave to appeal out of time.

[2] See: Re Muhammad Ali Pahat[2025] HKCA 657 at [3].

[3] The deadline is postponed to 15 September 2025 as 14 September 2025 falls on a Sunday.

[4] This is the same address used by the Applicant in his affirmation in support of the Application.

HCAL 1135/2020

[2025] HKCFI 3449

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST No. 1135 of 2020

BETWEEN
	Dao Xuan Trung	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 documents only; or
consideration of documents and oral submissions by the Applicant in open court;

Order by Deputy High Court Judge (Non-refoulement Claims) Val Chow:

1.  Form 86 be amended on the court’s own motion as follows:-
a.  theTorture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office be named as the Putative Respondent; and
b.  the Director of Immigration be named as the Putative Interested Party.
2.  Leave to apply for Judicial Review be dismissed.

Observations for the Applicant:

Introduction

1. By Form 86 filed on 9 June 2020 (the “Form”), the Applicant applied for leave to apply for judicial review (the “Leave Application”) against the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office (the “Board”) dated 13 May 2020 (the “Board’s Decision”) in which the Board affirmed a decision of the Director of Immigration (“Director”) dated 18 September 2019 which rejected the Applicant’s claims for non-refoulement.

2. As it is trite that the Board should be the proposed respondent whereas the Director should be the proposed interested party, I make an order to amend the Form accordingly on the court’s own motion to ensure that the relevant parties are properly named.

Background

3. The Applicant is a national of Vietnam. His detailed personal background, the relevant facts and procedural history have been sufficiently set out in the Board’s Decision, which can be assessed through a hyperlink[1], and I shall not repeat the same herein. In short, the Applicant claims that he will be subject to threats of serious harm or even death from his creditors if he were to return to Vietnam.

Discussion

4. In a judicial review, this court does not act as a further avenue of appeal. Though in non-refoulement case an enhanced standard in scrutinising the decision of the Board is required given the seriousness of the issue at hand, this court should not usurp the role of the Board, which together with the Director are the primary decision-makers. This court will not intervene by way of judicial review unless there are errors of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the decision of the Board (Nupur Mst v Director of Immigration[2018] HKCA 524, §14(1)). There must be a reasonably arguable claim with a realistic prospect of success before leave for judicial review will be granted (Peter Po Fun Chan v Winnie Cheung & Anr (2007) 10 HKCFAR 676).

5. In the Form 86 and the affirmation filed in support, the Applicant only expressed his disagreement with the Board’s Decision and did not point to any specific error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality of the Board’s Decision.

6. The Applicant attended an oral hearing before me on 18 July 2025. When asked if he had anything to add, he confirmed that he had not.

7. Looking at the Board’s Decision, all the available evidence was before the Board (at §§11-18), as well as Country of Origin Information (§§40-46), and after careful analysis (§§20-39) the Board came to the conclusion that the Applicant’s allegations of serious harm were not made out (§§51-60).

8. I am satisfied that the Board had analysed each of the applicable grounds under the Unified Screening Mechanism, identifying in each instance the correct legal principles (§§19, 61-84), and came to the conclusion that none was made out in light of the facts found by it (§§92-95). Further, the Board concluded that reasonable internal relocation alternatives were available to the Applicant in any event given that the Applicant was an able-bodied adult with reasonable working experience (§§85-91).

9. I do not see any basis for the court in a judicial review to intervene. After all, the gist of the Applicant’s factual case (even if accepted) concerns a private financial dispute with the individual creditors. There is no evidential basis to suggest that the creditors would have the means or the motivation to pursue the Applicant throughout Vietnam or to exert a corrupt influence over the Vietnam authorities in order to (i) persecute the Applicant; or (ii) shield the creditors if the Applicant seeks protection from the law enforcement authorities.

10. All in all, I do not see any errors of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality (applying the enhanced Wednesbury standard) in the Board’s Decision, despite rigorous examination and anxious scrutiny.

Conclusion

11. For the above reasons, leave is accordingly refused.

Dated the 11^th day of August 2025

( Edison Ho )
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

Notesfor 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 11/8/2025 Dao Xuan Trung 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 11/8/2025 Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office Putative Respondent’s ref. no.: USM 16346/19/9/102/V2353 Director of Immigration Putative Interested Party’s ref. no.: QA T/C 672/19 (Formerly RBCZ 167/19) Department of Justice, Senior Assistant Law Officer (Civil Law) (Civil Litigation Unit 2)

Form CALL-1

[1] https://legalref.judiciary.hk/doc/judg/html/vetted/other/en/2020/HCAL001135_2020_files/the_Board's_Decision.pdf

DAO XUAN TRUNG v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE [Decision on Leave Application]

Related cases with same parties

Files (2)

	consideration of documents only; or
	consideration of documents and oral submissions by the Applicant in open court;