Case Detail

DINH THI THANH HA v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

Related cases with same parties

CACV100/2026SINGH NARINDER PAL v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE
CACV10/2022ROBILLOS ADOLFO DE LA CRUZ v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE
CACV103/2021LUU THI VAN v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD /NON REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE
CACV103/2023ALMAS KHAWAR v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE
CACV103/2025COLLINS OBI v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE
CACV104/2019DHALI JONY v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE
CACV104/2023VU THI NGOC MY v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE
CACV105/2021DINH THI VAN 對 TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITON OFFICE
CACV107/2023NGUYEN THI THUY v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE
CACV107/2025AHMAD AQEEL v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE
CACV1081/2025HOANG VAN BINH v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE
CACV110/2021AYUB MUHAMMAD v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE
CACV11/2023RUPASINGHA ARACHCHIGE SHIROMA THARANGANI v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE
CACV112/2025NONG THI HA v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE
CACV113/2022SITI MULDIYATI v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE
CACV1151/2025ARSHDEEP SINGH v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE
CACV115/2022GALLEGO VALDES AUGUSTO v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE
CACV115/2024QUIRANTE JACKIELON DE GUZMAN v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE
CACV115/2025DINH KHAC KIEN v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE
CACV1153/2025MEGA PUSPITA SARI v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

Files (2)

[2025] HKCFI 3218-EN-2025-08-12

DINH THI THANH HA v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

HTML content

HCAL 1980/2024

[2025] HKCFI 3218

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST

NO. 1980 OF 2024

_____________

BETWEEN

	Dinh Thi Thanh Ha	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 K.W. Lung in Chambers

Date of Decision:

12 August 2025

_____________

DECISION

_____________

The application

1. The applicant is an illegal immigrant by staying in Hong Kong without permission and she lodged a non-refoulement claim with the Director of Immigration (“the Director”). The Director rejected her application and she appealed to the Torture Claims Appeal Board (“the Board”). Having considered her evidence, the Board, by its Decision (“the Board’s Decision”), rejected her appeal and affirmed the Director’s Decision.

2. Pursuant to Order 53, rule 3(2) of the Rules of the High Court (“RHC”), the applicant filed Form No. 86 to apply for leave to apply for judicial review of the Board’s Decision.

3. By Judgment dated 6 February 2025 (“the Judgment”), the Court dismissed her application for the reason that there is no realistic prospect of success in her intended application.

4. The Judgment was sent to the applicant on 6 February 2025 at her last known address without being returned from the Post Office. She is deemed to receive the Judgment[1].

5. The time for filing the notice of appeal expired on 20 February 2025[2].

6. By summons filed on 16 May 2025, the applicant applied for appeal against the Court’s decision out of time. She is late for more than two and a half months.

7. In her affirmation support of his application, the applicant said that she did not receive the Judgment from the Court.

Discussion

8. Pursuant to Order 32, rule 11 and 11A and Order 53, rule 3(3) of the RHC, having considered the applicant’s reason, I decide to determine this application on paper without an oral hearing[3].

9. The Court shall consider the factors as set out in AW v. Director of Immigration and William Lam [2016] 2 HKC 393 at para. 27(3) in considering if extension of time should be extended: (1) the length of delay; (2) the reasons for the delay; (3) the prospect of the intended appeal; and (4) the prejudice to the putative respondent if extension of time was granted. I shall consider the merits of her case.

10. In Re Adumekwe Rowland Ejike[2019] HKCA 702, the Court of Appeal held:

“19. The prospect of success of the intended appeal is important: the court will not grant extension for a hopeless appeal to be pursued, see Re Rahman Wasif[2019] HKCA 299 at [13]; Re Kpamou Gbotoi Bernard[2019] HKCA 168; and Re Irshad Muhammad[2018] HKCA 864 at [16].”

11. The applicant claimed that if refouled, she will be harmed or killed by her creditor because she was unable to repay her debt.

12. The Director rejected her claim because it was not substantiated. She appealed to the Board. Having considered the evidence, the Board held that she will not be subjected to any alleged harm if she returns to Vietnam.

13. There is no valid reason from the applicant to challenge the Board’s Decision or the Court’s decision.

14. In the circumstances, I refuse to extend time for her appeal. Accordingly, I dismiss her application.

	(K.W. Lung)
	Deputy High Court Judge

The applicant was unrepresented.

[1] Re: Ravinder Singh[2023] HKCA 604, Hon Poon CJHC and Cheung JA, 28 April 2023

“17. The applicant had not filed any notice of change of address for service to notify of any changes in his address. According to the Court’s record, the Court’s decision was sent to the applicant’s last known address on 31 March 2022 by ordinary post. He was deemed to receive the same on the next following day, not being a specified day such as a Saturday or a general holiday. He was therefore deemed to have received the Court’s decision on 1 April 2022. ”

[2] The public holidays are included in the 14-day period as per Order 2(5) of the Rules of the High Court

2. Reckoning periods of time (O. 3, r. 2)
(5) Where, apart from this paragraph, the period in question, being a period of 7 days or less, would include a specified day, that day shall be excluded.
(35 of 1998 s. 5; 18 of 2016 s. 5)

[3] Ogbozor Tochukwu Eugene v Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office and Director of Immigration[2022] HKCA 607, Hon Kwan VP and G Lam JA, 6 May 2022:

“16. … … In respect of his complaint of no oral hearing, the judge is entitled to decide the matter on paper pursuant to the Order 32, rules 11 and 11A and Order 53 rule 3(3) of the Rules of the High Court.”

HCAL 1980/2024

[2025] HKCFI 267

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST

NO. 1980 OF 2024

_____________

BETWEEN

	Dinh Thi Thanh Ha	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 K.W. Lung in Chambers

Date of Judgment:

6 February 2025

_____________

JUDGMENT

_____________

THE APPLICATION

1. The applicant applies for leave to apply for judicial review of the Decision dated 21 December 2023 of the Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office (“the Board’s Decision”).

2. The applicant did not request a hearing. I shall deal with her application on the papers.

3. Pursuant to Order 20, rule 8 and Order 53, rule 3(6) of the Rules of the High Court, Form 86 is amended to the effect that the proposed respondent is the Board and the Director of Immigration is the interested party.

The applicant

4. The applicant, aged 54, is a national of Vietnam. She claimed that, if refouled, she would be tortured, including being assaulted, imprisoned or even killed by her creditor called Nguyen Van Tuan (Nguyen).

5. She came to Hong Kong on 15 November 2022 and engaged in illegal employment, for which she was arrested, convicted and sentenced to imprisonment. She lodged her non-refoulement claim by written representation dated 15 May 2023 for the above reasons.

6. According to the applicant, in 2001, she and her husband had borrowed a loan of 2 billion Vietnamese currency from Nguyen for their business of grocery and transportation. Because of Covid-19, their business went down and they were unable to pay the monthly interest. Nguyen and his 5 underlings had gone to her premises twice to demand repayment of the loan. On the first occasion, they did not use violence, but had only threatened them to repay the loan. On the second occasion, they assaulted her and her husband. They slapped her face with hands and hit her husband with knife and wooden sticks. They had sustained injuries. They had to move to live in other friends’ places. They finally decided to leave Vietnam and came to Hong Kong illegally. Her husband is being detained in prison; and she in the detention centre of the Immigration Department.

7. Details of the applicant’s story can be found in paragraph 6 of the Director’s Decision dated 24 July 2023 (“the Director’s Decision”).

The Director’s Decision

8. The Director considered the applicant’s claim in relation to the following risks:

a. 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”);
b. risk of torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment (“CIDTP”) under Article 3 of Section 8 of the HKBOR (“BOR 3 risk”);
c. 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”); and
d. risk of torture under Part VIIC of the Immigration Ordinance, Cap. 115, (“the Ordinance”) (“Torture risk”).

9. By way of the Director’s Decision, the Director dismissed the applicant’s claim on the applicable risks for the reasons that (i) her claimed level of risk was assessed to be low [11] – [13]; (ii) state protection would be available to her [14]-[19]; and internal relocation was viable [20]-[21].

The Board’s Decision

10. The applicant appealed the Director’s Decision to the Board. On 21 November 2023, the Board conducted a hearing. The applicant has given oral evidence before the Board.

11. The Board, having considered the evidence, found that the applicant has not suffered any harm or threats of death or harm from Nguyen; there is absence of consistent pattern of gross, flagrant or mass violation of human rights in Vietnam; state protection, including judicial system is available to her; and relocation to Ha Noi or Nha Trang will be safe for her. See paragraphs 130-135 of the Board’s Decision.

12. The applicant’s appeal was therefore dismissed and the Director’s decision was confirmed.

Application for leave to apply for judicial review of the Board’s Decision

13. The applicant has filed Form 86 dated 1 November 2024 for leave to apply for judicial review of the Board’s Decision.

14. The applicant did not raise any specific ground in support of her application.

DISCUSSION

15. 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).

16. The Court will bear in mind that the Board’s Decision should be examined with rigorous examination and anxious scrutiny.

17. 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.”

18. Theapplicant has failed to raise any valid ground to challenge the Board’s Decision. In my view, the Court has no reason to interfere with it.

19. The applicant therefore fails to show that she has any realistic prospect of success in her proposed judicial review of the Board’s Decision.

DISPOSITION

20. I refuse to grant leave for the applicant to apply for judicial review of the Board’s Decision. Accordingly, I dismiss her application.

POSTSCRIPT

21. It is clear that this is a relatively simple and straightforward case. The Board has adopted an approach of repetitive and academic analysis of the facts of the case and the Board’s Decision runs to 59 pages.

22. I have raised this issue in the Postscript of my previous judgment in Re Akinchang Benedicta Balingao[2024] HKCFI 286 that, the Board should take into consideration the costs and time for cases like this one. Any courts below, including the Board should follow the guidelines as laid down by the Court of Final Appeal and should not deviate from them without very cogent reasons. There is no such cogent reason in the Board’s Decision. Nor do I find any for this case. For the sake of saving costs and time, the Board should follow the guidelines accordingly.

23. I advise that excessive cost incurred should not be allowed if the cost is charged on time basis.

	(K.W. Lung)
	Deputy High Court Judge

The applicant was unrepresented.