NGUYEN THI HUONG v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD

CACV 1168/2025, [2026] HKCA 81

On Appeal From [2025] HKCFI 5812

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 1168 OF 2025

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 821 OF 2021)

________________________

_____________________

_______________

J U D G M E N T

_______________

Hon Chow JA (giving the Judgment of the Court):

1.  This is the Applicant’s appeal against the order of Deputy High Court Judge Bruno Chan (“the Judge”) dated 28 November 2025 (“the Order”) refusing to grant leave to the Applicant to apply for judicial review of the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office (“the Board”) dated 14 April 2021 (“the Board’s Decision”), whereby the Board dismissed the Applicant’s appeal against the decision of the Director of Immigration (“the Director”) dated 16 October 2019 rejecting her non-refoulement claim.

2.  The Applicant alleges that, if refouled to Vietnam, she will be harmed or killed by her creditor due to her husband’s outstanding debts which she is unable to repay. The Applicant’s background, the basis of her claim, the findings of the Board and its reasons for dismissing her appeal against the Director’s decision have been set out in detail in the Board’s Decision, and summarised by the Judge in the Judge’s decision (see §§1-8 of the Form CALL-1). We do not propose to repeat them here.

3.  The Judge’s reasons for dismissing the Applicant’s leave application are set out at §§9-12 of the Form CALL-1. In gist, the Judge found that the Applicant did not put forward any or any proper ground for her intended challenge against the Board’s Decision. The Judge also found that there were no errors of law or procedural unfairness in the Board’s assessment of the Applicant’s claim.

THIS APPEAL

4.  In her Notice of Appeal filed on 10 December 2025, the Applicant repeats her claimed fear of harm from her creditor in Vietnam, and asserts that her creditor and the subordinates of her creditor disregard the law and are willing to kill people to satisfy their anger and ferocity. She disagrees with the Director’s assessment that she could move to another location in Vietnam to avoid the creditor for various reasons, and alleges that the Immigration Department did not consider her human rights under various instruments including the Basic Law and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

5.  The Applicant has failed to lodge written submissions in support of her appeal in accordance with the directions given by the Registrar of Civil Appeals on 10 December 2025. Accordingly, she is deemed to have waived the right to have an oral hearing of her appeal and elected to have her appeal disposed of on paper. Having considered the documents before us, we consider that it is appropriate to deal with the Applicant’s appeal on paper without an oral hearing.

DISCUSSION

6.  In an appeal against refusal of leave to apply for judicial review in non-refoulement cases, the Court of Appeal would only examine the decision of the judge in light of the grounds advanced by the applicant. If no viable ground is put forward to reverse the judge’s decision, the appeal should be dismissed. The Court of Appeal’s role is not to examine the Board’s decision afresh as if it was a fresh application for judicial review (see Nupur Mst v Director of Immigration [2018] HKCA 524, at §14(6)).

7.  Further, the assessment of evidence, country of origin information, 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: Re Kartini [2019] HKCA 1022, at §13. No such error of law or procedural unfairness or irrationality in the decision of the Board is shown in the present case.

8.  The matters raised in the Applicant’s Notice of Appeal are mostly directed at the Director’s decision, and are general allegations without particulars. They do not constitute valid grounds of appeal against the Judge’s decision.

9.  The Applicant has failed to identify or show any error in the Judge’s decision refusing to grant leave to apply for judicial review, or raise any viable ground of appeal against the Order.

10.  The Applicant’s appeal has no merit, and is dismissed.

11.  This judgment is written in English although both the decisions of the Director and the Board are written in Chinese, because the Applicant’s Notice of Appeal is written in English. If required, the Applicant may make an appointment with the clerk to this Court for an oral interpretation of this judgment in the Applicant’s preferred language at a mutually convenient time in the Court’s premises.