DANG VAN BINH v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

CACV 919/2025, [2026] HKCA 882

On Appeal From [2025] HKCFI 4668

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 919 OF 2025

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 1306 OF 2020)

_____________________

_____________________

________________

J U D G M E N T

________________

The Court:

INTRODUCTION

1.  This is the Applicant’s appeal against the order of Deputy High Court Judge Levy (“the Judge”) dated 13 October 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 17 June 2020 (“the Board’s Decision”).

BACKGROUND

2.  The Applicant is a national of Vietnam. On 9 September 2019, the Applicant lodged a non-refoulement claim on the basis that, if refouled, he would be harmed or killed by the loan shark with triad background for an unpaid loan. The Applicant’s non-refoulement claim was rejected by the Director of Immigration (“the Director”) on 15 November 2019, and the appeal against the Director’s decision was rejected by the Board on 17 June 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, the hyperlink to which can be found in the Form CALL-1 dated 13 October 2025.

3.  The Applicant’s application for leave to apply for judicial review was refused by the Judge on 13 October 2025. Details of the Judge’s reasons for refusing to grant leave can be found in the Form CALL-1.

GROUNDS OF APPEAL

4.  In the Notice of Appeal filed on 23 October 2025, the Applicant essentially argues that he would be beaten or even killed by his creditors and gangsters 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.  The Applicant has failed to lodge written submissions in support of the appeal in accordance with the directions given by the Registrar of Civil Appeals on 6 February 2026. Accordingly, the Applicant is deemed to have waived the right to have an oral hearing of the appeal and elected to have the appeal disposed of on paper. Having considered the documents before us, we consider that it is appropriate to deal with the Applicant’s appeal on paper without an oral hearing.

DISCUSSION & DISPOSITION

6.  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)).

7.  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.

8.  The matters raised in the Applicant’s Notice of Appeal are all general allegations without particulars. They 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].

9.  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.

10.  The Applicant’s appeal has no merit, and is dismissed.