NGUYEN DUC THINH v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

CACV 263 /2024, [2026] HKCA 384

On appeal from [2024] HKCFI 1709

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 263 OF 2024

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 1689 OF 2019)

________________________

________________________

J U D G M E N T

________________________

Hon Kwan VP (giving the Judgment of the Court):

1.  This is the applicant’s Notice of Motion for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal against the judgment of the Court of Appeal handed down on 18 June 2025 ([2025] HKCA 559). The Court of Appeal rejected the appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge K W Lung dated 26 June 2024 refusing to grant leave for the applicant to apply for judicial review against the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board concerning his non-refoulement claim.

2.  Pursuant to paragraph 3 of Practice Direction 2.1, the Registrar of Civil Appeals had directed that the Notice of Motion shall be determined on paper without an oral hearing.  The applicant lodged his written submissions on 7 July 2025.  Having considered the written submissions and the papers, we think it is appropriate to determine this application on paper and proceed to do so.

Grounds of appeal

3.  The applicant stated the following grounds of appeal in his Notice of Motion, which are substantially the same as the grounds stated in his Notice of Appeal:

(1)     If he returns to Vietnam, he would be harmed or killed by the Vietnamese government because he was falsely accused of being a spy.

(2)     It is completely unfeasible for him to change to live in another location as he would face many difficulties and obstacles.  Local authorities in Vietnam have close connections so he would be easily found, arrested and killed.

(3)     The Director of Immigration did not consider the human rights under the Basic Law or the “Hong Kong Human Rights and Democracy Act”, International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights or International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Right.

4.  In his written submissions, the applicant stated his problems in Vietnam and the procedural history of his case.  He further contended that high standards of fairness are required in the determination of a torture claim on the part of the decision maker, and the adjudicator acted in a procedurally unfair manner without properly assessing his credibility.

Analysis and disposition

5.  Section 22(1)(b) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance (Cap 484) provides that an appeal shall lie to the Court of Final Appeal at the discretion of the Court of Appeal or the Court of Final Appeal, from any judgment of the Court of Appeal in any civil cause or matter, whether final or interlocutory, if, in the opinion of the Court of Appeal or the Court of Final Appeal, as the case may be, the question involved in the appeal is one which, by reason of its great general or public importance, or otherwise, ought to be submitted to the Court of Final Appeal for decision.

6.  The applicant’s grounds and submissions are just bare assertions without supporting evidence.  In particular, the applicant attended the hearing before the adjudicator with his counsel and the adjudicator had given detailed reasons for finding the applicant untruthful.  Furthermore, he did not identify any particular mistakes in our decision, nor did he identify any question of great general or public importance which ought to be submitted to the Court of Final Appeal for determination in accordance with section 22(1)(b).  There is also no basis for granting leave on the ‘or otherwise’ limb under section 22(1)(b).

7.  For the above reasons, we dismiss the Notice of Motion filed on 30 June 2025.