|
CACV 1080/2025, [2026] HKCA 1468
On Appeal From [2025] HKCFI 5162
IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
COURT OF APPEAL
CIVIL APPEAL NO 1080 OF 2025
(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 1105 OF 2025)
________________________
BETWEEN
|
NGUYEN TU DOANH |
Applicant
|
|
and
|
|
|
TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE
|
Putative Respondent
|
|
and
|
|
|
DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION
|
Putative Interested Party
|
_____________________
| Before: |
Hon Poon CJHC and Ng J in Court |
| Date of Hearing: |
14 August 2026 |
| Date of Judgment: |
2 September 2026 |
_____________________
JUDGMENT
_____________________
The Court:
INTRODUCTION
1. This is the Applicant’s appeal against the order of DHCJ K.W.
Lung (“the Judge”) dated 12 November 2025 (“the Order”) refusing to grant leave to apply for
judicial review of the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office
(“the Board”) dated 24 April 2025 (“the Board’s Decision”).
BACKGROUND
2. The Applicant is a national of Vietnam. The Applicant
previously lodged a non-refoulement claim on the basis that, if refouled, he would be harmed or killed by his
creditor, from whom he had borrowed 10 billion VND and he was unable to repay the loan. The Applicant’s
claim was rejected by the Director of Immigration (“the Director”) on 27 February 2025, and the appeal
against the Director’s decision was rejected by the Board on 24 April 2025. 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 CALL-1 Form.
3. The Applicant’s application for leave to apply for judicial
review was refused by the Judge on 12 November 2025. Details of the Judge’s reasons for refusing to grant
leave can be found in the CALL-1 Form.
GROUNDS OF APPEAL
4. In the Notice of Appeal filed on 25 November 2025, the
Applicant essentially argues that he would be harmed or even killed by his father’s creditors and followers if
he returned to Vietnam, that the Director failed to properly assess that internal relocation is not feasible,
and that the Director failed to consider his human rights.
5. In his skeleton arguments filed on 29 June 2026, the
Applicant argues that:
(1) The Board took irrelevant matter into consideration and failed to take relevant matters into
consideration.
(2) The Board failed to apply a high standard of fairness.
(3) The Board failed to exercise independent assessment.
(4) The Board’s decision was irrational.
6. The appeal was heard on 14 August 2026. The Applicant
attended the hearing in person with the assistance of a Vietnamese interpreter and confirmed that he had nothing
further to add.
LEGAL PRINCIPLES
7. 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)).
8. 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.
DISCUSSION & DISPOSITION
9. The matters raised in the Applicant’s Notice of Appeal and
skeleton arguments are all general allegations without particulars. In particular, the complaints in the
skeleton arguments are only directed at the Board. They do not relate to the Judge’s reasons for refusing
to grant leave to the Applicant to apply for judicial review and do not constitute any valid grounds of appeal
against the Judge’s decision. Furthermore, general assertions of fear if refouled do not constitute proper
grounds of appeal: Re Saldua Dorothy Trifalgar [2022] HKCA 627 at [6].
10. 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.
11. The Applicant’s appeal has no merit, and is dismissed.
(Jeremy Poon)
Chief Judge of the
High Court |
(Peter Ng)
Judge of the Court of
First Instance |
The Applicant, acting in person
|