BUI VAN THANH v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD

CACV 661/2025, [2026] HKCA 173

On appeal from [2025] HKCFI 3835

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 661 OF 2025

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 778 OF 2020)

__________________________

__________________________

________________

J U D G M E N T

________________

The Court:

Introduction

1.  This is the applicant’s appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge Michael Wong (“the Judge”) dated 26 August 2025,[1] refusing his application for leave to apply for judicial review against the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board (the “Board”) dated 23 April 2020 (the “Board’s Decision”) whereby the Board dismissed his appeal against the decision of the Director of Immigration (the “Director”) dated 25 June 2018 (the “Director’s Decision”).

The applicant’s claim and the Judge’s decision

2.  The applicant is a national of Vietnam. In his non-refoulement claim form filed with the Immigration Department dated 5 June 2018, he alleged that, if refouled, he would be harmed or killed by his creditor and/or his men for an unsettled debt. The applicant’s non-refoulement claim was rejected by the Director, and his appeal against it was rejected by the Board on 23 April 2020. Details of the applicant’s claim and the Board’s reasons for rejecting the applicant’s appeal can be found in the Board’s Decision, the hyperlink to which can be found in the Form CALL-1.

3.  The applicant’s application for leave to apply for judicial review was refused by the Judge and details of the Judge’s reasons for refusing to grant leave can be found in the Form CALL-1.

The appeal

4.  By a notice of appeal filed on 1 September 2025, the applicant sought to appeal the Judge’s decision to this court. The applicant’s grounds of appeal can be summarised as follows:

(1)  The applicant will still face the risk of being harmed or killed by his creditor if he is returned to his home country;

(2)  Internal relocation as suggested in the Director’s decision is not feasible;

(3)  The Director did not consider his human rights under the Basic Law, Hong Kong Human Rights and Democracy Act, International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Internation Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights; and

(4)  He seeks justice and asks for asylum in Hong Kong.

5.  In the applicant’s skeleton submissions lodged 18 December 2025, his arguments can be summarised as follows:

(1)  the Board had taken irrelevant matters into consideration and failed to take relevant matters into consideration;

(2)  the Board had failed to apply a high standard of fairness;

(3)  the Board had failed to exercise independent assessment;

(4)  the Board’s decision was irrational.

Significantly, the applicant did not indicate any complaint against or identify any error made by the Judge in dismissing his application for leave to take out a judicial review.

6.  At the hearing on 29 January 2026, the applicant reiterated that his life would be in danger if he were to be refouled to Vietnam.

Our reasons for decision

7.  The Court of Appeal’s general approach in dealing with appeals in non-refoulement cases is 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, 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 is a fresh application for judicial review (see Nupur Mst, at §14(6)).

8.  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. In the present case, the Judge found no such error of law or procedural unfairness or irrationality in the decision of the Board.

9.  It is incumbent on the applicant to point out the Judge's errors with sufficient particulars and specifics. However, the matters set out in the notice of appeal and his written submissions failed to identify any error on the part of the Judge. They do not constitute any viable grounds of appeal and lack substance. We see no basis to interfere with the Judge’s decision.

10.  The applicant’s appeal is devoid of merits, and is dismissed.