TRAN HUU NAM v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

CACV 615/2025, [2026] HKCA 132

On Appeal From [2025] HKCFI 3440

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 615 OF 2025

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO. 1031 OF 2020)

__________________

____________________

________________

J U D G M E N T

________________

Hon Anthony Chan JA (giving the Judgment of the Court):

1.  This is the Applicant’s appeal against the order (“Dismissal Order”) of Deputy High Court Judge (Non-refoulement Claims) Val Chow (“Judge”) dated 11 August 2025 by which his application for leave to apply for judicial review (“Leave Application”) against the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board (“Board”) dated 31 October 2019 (“Board’s Decision”) was dismissed, and extension of time refused. By that decision, the Board upheld the decision of the Director of Immigration (“Director”) to reject the Applicant’s non-refoulement claim.

2.  The Applicant is a national of Vietnam. The basis of his non-refoulement claim had been set out in detail in the Board’s Decision, which may be viewed online via the hyperlink contained in footnote 1 of the Form CALL-1. In gist, the Applicant claims that if he returns to Vietnam he would be harmed or killed by loan shark and gangsters associated with the loan shark due to his inability to repay his loan.

3.  In [9] to [14] of the Form CALL-1, the Judge gave detailed reasons for refusing the Leave Application.

4.  By a Notice of Appeal filed on 18 August 2025, the Applicant appeals against the Judge’s decision. In summary, the Applicant contends that:

(1)  The Applicant would be harmed or killed by loan shark and gangsters if he returns to Vietnam;

(2)  Internal relocation is not feasible as the Applicant would face many difficulties and obstacles in a new location, and there is no guarantee that he would be able to adapt and find a job; and

(3)  The Director did not consider the Applicant’s human rights under the Basic Law or the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights or other international legal instruments.

5.  The Applicant has not lodged any written submissions. Consequently, pursuant to the directions given by the Registrar of Civil Appeals on 18 August 2025, this appeal has been referred to this Court to be disposed of on paper without an oral hearing based on the available documents, and we consider it appropriate to do so.

6.  The general approach of this Court in dealing with appeals in non-refoulement cases has been set out in Nupur Mst v Director of Immigration [2018] HKCA 524 at [14]. In particular, in an appeal against refusal of leave to apply for judicial review in non-refoulement cases, this Court 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. This Court’s role is not to examine the Board’s decision afresh as if it is a fresh application for judicial review (see Nupur Mst 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 is an error of law or procedural unfairness or irrationality in the decision of the Board: Re Kartini [2019] HKCA 1022 at [13].

8.  We note that the grounds of appeal are concerned with alleged errors made by the Board and the Director, and not with any error of the Judge. We agree with the Judge that the Board was correct in finding that internal relocation would be viable.  We are unable to see any merit in the grounds of appeal.

9.  In the premises, the appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs.