RE LE NHU NHUNG

CACV 1210/2025, [2026] HKCA 728

On Appeal From [2025] HKCFI 5759

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 1210 OF 2025

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL 1129/2025)

-----------------------------------

-----------------------------------

___________________

J U D G M E N T

___________________

Hon Leung J (giving the Judgment of the Court):

1.  This is an appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge KW Lung (“the Judge”) dated 8 December 2025[1] (“the Leave Decision”) refusing to extend time for the applicant to apply for leave to apply for judicial review (and dismissing the leave application). The intended judicial review was that of the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board/adjudicator of the Non-Refoulement Claims Petition Office (“the Board”) dated 25 June 2024 (“the Board’s Decision”) whereby the applicant’s appeal against the decision of the Director of Immigration dated 23 November 2023 rejecting the applicant’s non-refoulement claim was dismissed.

2.  The applicant is a Vietnamese national. Her personal background, basis of claim and the Board’s reasons were set out in the Board’s Decision[2] as well as the Leave Decision at [4]-[5] and [8]-[10]. They will not be repeated.

3.  The applicant did not request for an oral hearing of her leave application before the Judge. Considering the documents filed by the applicant, the Judge dismissed the application for the reasons stated at [13]-[19] of the Leave Decision.

Appeal to this Court

4.  In her Notice of Appeal filed on 18 December 2025, the applicant stated that she is currently being targeted and persecuted by the Vietnamese authorities for “political views, religious belief, social activities or other relevant reasons” and that she would face serious harm should she be refouled. She asked that she be allowed to remain in Hong Kong for “humanitarian protection” or to resettle in a third country.

5.  In her written submission dated 21 January 2026, the applicant essentially repeated her Notice of Appeal. She argued that contrary to the Judge’s view, the Board failed to apply “high standards of fairness” in considering her claim, and offered to provide additional evidence.

6.  We heard the appeal on 1 April 2026, at which the applicant appeared in person with the assistance with a Vietnamese/English interpreter. At the hearing, the applicant appeared to dispute that her leave application before the Judge was out of time, but the situation was clearly explained by the Judge in the Leave Decision at [1]; [13]. Other than that, the applicant confirmed she had nothing to add to her written submission.

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]. 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.

8.  The Court’s role is not to examine the decision maker’s decision afresh as if it were a fresh application for judicial review. Nor is an appeal the occasion for regurgitating arguments advanced and rejected by the judge or for running arguments which could and should have been raised but were not raised before the judge. In the determination of an appeal, the Court of Appeal focuses on the decision of the judge and the Court will only reverse that decision if an appellant could demonstrate that the judge made errors of law or failed to take account of relevant matters already placed before the judge or was otherwise plainly wrong.

9.  In this appeal, assertions by the applicant of fear, if refouled, do not constitute proper grounds of appeal: Re Saldua Dorothy Trifalgar [2022] HKCA 627 at [6]. In any event, the assertions have been considered by the Director and the Board. 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].

10.  After hearing oral evidence from the applicant, the Board was unpersuaded by the applicant’s claims of her political affiliation or participation in the relevant political protests (see for instance Board’s Decision, [87]-[88]). The Board analysed the material inconsistencies in the applicant’s evidence which led to its conclusion that the applicant’s “core claims” were based on “a manifestation of … inventions and implausibility” (Board’s Decision, [112]). Further, the Board was of the view that in any event adequate and suitable options of internal relocation were available to the applicant in order to minimise the risks of harm, if any.

11.  These were factual findings open to the Board on the evidence, which were sufficiently canvassed and considered by the Judge in the Leave Decision at [13]-[19]. We see no basis to interfere.

12.  By way of her written submission, the applicant expressed her disagreement with the Judge, but without particularising how the Judge has erred in concluding that the Board, contrary to her assertion, had not acted unlawfully or procedurally unfairly in reaching its decision, or how such decision could be said to be Wednesbury unreasonable.

13.  There is therefore no viable ground or merit in the appeal, and we dismiss the appeal accordingly.