Your World of Legal Intelligence
 Hong Kong | 1-800-335-6202

Ngo Quoc Phuc v Torture Claims Appeal Board

Judgment Cited authorities 3 Cited in 1 Precedent Map Related
Vincent
Judgment Date23 April 2021
Neutral Citation[2021] HKCA 542
Judgement NumberCACV521/2020
Subject MatterCivil Appeal
CourtCourt of Appeal (Hong Kong)
CACV521/2020 NGO QUOC PHUC v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD

CACV 521/2020

[2021] HKCA 542

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 521 OF 2020

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 926 OF 2018)

________________________

BETWEEN
Ngo Quoc Phuc Applicant
and
Torture Claims Appeal Board Putative Respondent
and
Director of Immigration Putative Interested Party

________________________

Before: Hon Kwan VP, Chu JA and Au JA

Date of Written Submission: 30 December 2020

Date of Judgment: 23 April 2021

________________________

J U D G M E N T

________________________

Hon Kwan VP (giving the Judgment of the Court):

1. The applicant lodged a Notice of Appeal on 28 September 2020 against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge Bruno Chan dated 18 September 2020[1]. By that decision, the judge refused to grant leave to the applicant to seek judicial review of the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board (“the Board”) concerning his non‑refoulement protection claim.

2. The applicant is a national of Vietnam. He is 30 years old. He entered Hong Kong illegally on 23 September 2015 and was arrested by police on the same day. On 27 September 2015, he raised a non‑refoulement claim on the basis that if he returns to Vietnam he will be harmed or killed by his creditor for failing to repay his debt.

3. The applicant consented to the disposal of this appeal on paper by the Court of Appeal. He lodged his written submissions on 30 December 2020 pursuant to the directions of the Registrar of Civil Appeals.

The Director’s decision

4. By a Notice of Decision dated 20 April 2017, the Director of Immigration (“the Director”) rejected the applicant’s non-refoulement claim on all applicable grounds including torture risk[2], BOR 2 risk[3], BOR 3 risk[4] and persecution risk[5].

5. Taking into account the low intensity and frequency of past ill-treatment from the applicant’s creditor, the Director considered that the level of risk of harm upon the applicant's return to Vietnam is low. The Director also assessed that the harm inflicted by the creditor and his fellows did not attain the minimum level of severity required for non-refoulement protection. The Director further considered that the applicant’s problem with the creditor is a private dispute without any official involvement. The Director also held that the availability of state protection and internal relocation alternatives further lowers or negates the level of risk.

The Board’s decision

6. The applicant appealed to the Board against the Director’s decision. The Board conducted an oral hearing on 1 December 2017. The Board found that the applicant’s claim that he is at risk of harm is only his own speculation and the ill-treatment had not attained the minimum level of severity. As the creditor and his fellows were non-state actors, the Board considered it highly unlikely that the creditor would be able to locate the applicant if he relocates to other places in Vietnam and internal relocation will not be unduly harsh for him. Thus, the Board decided that the applicant is not entitled to non-refoulement protection and rejected the appeal on 20 March 2018.

The intended judicial review

7. The applicant filed a Form 86 and an affirmation on 24 May 2018 to seek leave to apply for judicial review against the decision of the Board. He only stated in his supporting affirmation that he cannot go back to Vietnam as he cannot repay the debt and the creditor had threatened to kill him. He did not put forward any specific grounds for his intended challenge against the Board’s decision.

The judge’s decision

8. The judge found that the applicant does not have any reasonably arguable basis to challenge the findings of the Board. The judge was not satisfied that the applicant has any prospect of success in his intended judicial review as there is no error of law or procedural unfairness in the decisions of the Director and the Board. Therefore, the leave application was dismissed on 18 September 2020.

Grounds of appeal

9. The applicant filed a...

To continue reading

Request your trial
1 cases
  • Ngo Quoc Phuc v Torture Claims Appeal Board
    • Hong Kong
    • Court of Appeal (Hong Kong)
    • 6 September 2021
    ...to the Court of Final Appeal against the judgment of the Court of Appeal (Kwan VP, Chu JA and Au JA) handed down on 23 April 2021 ([2021] HKCA 542). The Court of Appeal rejected his appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge Bruno Chan dated 18 September 2020 ([2020] HKCFI 2340)......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT