VU THANH MINH v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

CACV 857/2025, [2026] HKCA 429

On Appeal From [2025] HKCFI 4238

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 857 OF 2025

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 725 OF 2020)

________________________

_____________________

________________

JUDGMENT

________________

The Court:

INTRODUCTION

1.  This is the Applicant’s appeal against the order of DHCJ (Non-refoulement Claims) YW Hew (“the Judge”) dated 25 September 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 9 April 2020 (“the Board’s Decision”).

BACKGROUND

2.  The Applicant is a national of Vietnam.  The Applicant lodged a non-refoulement claim on the basis that, if refouled, he would be harmed or killed by his creditor.  The Applicant’s claim was rejected by the Director of Immigration (“the Director”) on 31 December 2019, and the appeal against the Director’s decision was rejected by the Board on 9 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. 

3.  The Applicant’s application for leave to apply for judicial review was refused by the Judge on 25 September 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 10 October 2025, the Applicant essentially argues that he would be killed or harmed by his creditor and his subordinates if he returned, that the Director failed to appreciate or properly assess the viability of internal relocation, and that the Director failed to consider his human rights.  

5.  In the skeleton arguments filed on 26 January 2026, the Applicant argued 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 13 March 2026.  The Applicant attended the hearing in person with the assistance of a Vietnamese interpreter and 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 below will not intervene by way of judicial review unless there are errors of law, 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, supporting affirmation and skeleton arguments are all bare allegations without particulars whereas the complaints in the skeleton arguments are 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. 

10.  The Applicant has failed to identify and substantiate 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.