RE BUI KHANH HUYEN

CACV 67/2026, [2026] HKCA 622

On Appeal From [2026] HKCFI 271

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 67 OF 2026

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 2480 OF 2020)

________________________

________________________

________________________

J U D G M E N T

________________________

Hon Au 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 13 January 2026 ([2026] HKCFI 271)  (“the Leave Decision”)  dismissing her application for leave to apply for judicial review (“the Leave Application”)  against the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office (“the Board”)  dated 27 November 2020 (“the Board’s Decision”), whereby the Board dismissed her appeal against the decision of the Director of Immigration dated 30 October 2019, refusing her non-refoulement claim.

2.  The applicant’s background, the basis of her claim and arguments advanced before the Board as well as the Board’s reasons for rejecting her appeal are all set out in the Board’s Decision: see [1] - [13] of the Leave Decision.  The Judge has set out his reasons for refusing the Leave Application at [14] - [18] of the Leave Decision.  We will not repeat the details herein.

3.  In her Notice of Appeal filed on 26 January 2026, the applicant mainly complained that, if refouled, her life would be seriously threatened by her creditor and local gangsters as it might be possible for them to locate her.  She also claimed that internal relocation would be completely unfeasible as there would be no guarantee that she would be able to adapt to the new place.  She also complained that the Immigration Department failed to consider her human rights under various legislations but failed to particularise her complaints.

4.  In her supporting affirmation filed on 26 January 2026, the applicant merely requested the court to exercise its discretion to allow her appeal.

5.  The applicant also lodged written submissions on 9 February 2026.  In those submissions, she repeated the factual basis and procedural history of her non-refoulement claim.  She further asserted that she would face a serious risk and danger from her enemies upon refoulement and returning to Vietnam would not be a viable option.  She also claimed that she would not be able to protect herself if she was forced to leave Hong Kong and that she wanted to live safely, lawfully and with human dignity.

6.  We heard the appeal on 16 March 2026.  A Vietnamese interpreter was also present to provide language assistance.  However, the applicant without any notice did not turn up at the hearing.  The applicant should be aware of the hearing as she was notified of the date of this hearing in the Directions for Appeals for Non-Refoulment Claims which she acknowledged its receipt in writing on 26 January 2026.  In these circumstances, we will proceed to deal with this appeal on paper.

DISCUSSION

7.  The relevant legal principles governing appeals in non-refoulement cases are set out in Nupur Mst v Director of Immigration [2018] HKCA 524 at [14].

8.  In particular, in an appeal against refusal of leave to apply for judicial review in non-refoulement cases, the Court of Appeal will 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’s role is not to examine the decision maker’s decision afresh as if it were a fresh application for judicial review.  See Nupur Mst v Director of Immigration [2018] HKCA 524 at [14(6)].

9.  In light of the above, it is thus incumbent on the applicant to point out the errors in the Leave Decision with sufficient particulars and specifics.

10.  In our view, the applicant’s appeal has no substance.  At the outset, her assertions are all general, vague and bare in nature which are not proper grounds of appeal.  General assertions of her fear if refouled do not constitute proper grounds of appeal: Re Saldua Dorothy Trifalgar [2022] HKCA 627 at [6].  More importantly, she has failed to identify any error with specific particulars against the Leave Decision.  Accordingly, her assertions are not valid grounds of appeal.

11.  For the above reasons, we see no basis to interfere with the Leave Decision.  The applicant’s appeal has no merit and is hereby dismissed.