RE NGUYEN VAN DUNG

CACV 340/2025, [2026] HKCA 1258

On Appeal From [2025] HKCFI 1695

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 340 OF 2025

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO. 3821 OF 2019)

————————————————

————————————————

————————————————

JUDGMENT

————————————————

Hon Cheung JA (giving the Judgment of the Court) :

1.  This is the applicant’s appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge Martin Wong dated 13 May 2025 ([2025] HKCFI 1695) (‘the Leave Decision’) refusing his application for leave to apply for judicial review (‘the Leave Application’) against the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office (‘the Board’) dated 12 June 2019 (‘the Board’s Decision’), whereby the Board dismissed his appeal against the decision of the Director of Immigration (‘the Director’) dated 25 November 2016, refusing his non-refoulement claim.

2.  The applicant did not request an oral hearing and consented to the appeal being disposed of on paper by the Court.  We will, accordingly, deal with the appeal on paper on the basis of the materials already filed with the Court.

3.  The applicant’s background, the basis of his claim and arguments advanced before the Board as well as the Board’s reasons for rejecting his appeal are all set out in the Board’s Decision: see [4], [8]-[9] of the Leave Decision.

4.  The applicant entered Hong Kong illegally on 15 May 2015 via the Mainland.  On 18 May 2015, he surrendered to the Immigration Department for illegal remaining.  He made a non-refoulement claim on 24 November 2015 under all applicable grounds. The basis of his claim is that if he returned to Vietnam, he would be harmed or killed by a money lender because of default in loan repayment.

5.  The Judge also sets out the grounds advanced by the applicant in support of the Leave Application and his reasons for refusing the Leave Application: see [6]‑[11] of the Leave Decision.  We will not repeat the details herein.

6.  By the Notice of Appeal filed on 27 May 2025, the applicant stated the following in summary :

1)     If the applicant returns to Vietnam, his life will be threatened because the gangsters there are different to those in Hong Kong with most of them cruel and violent;

2)     Internal relocation is not feasible, as the applicant will face difficulties and obstacles, and there is no guarantee he can adapt;

3)     The nationwide network of gangsters can locate the applicant;

4)     Immigration Department did not consider his human rights; and

5)     Due to importance of his appeal, the appeal should be allowed.

7.  In his supporting affirmation, the applicant stated the following in summary :

1)     He has a good ground of appeal which was not considered at the leave stage; and

2)     The Director/The Board ‘did not see grounds to reserve their decisions’.

I.     Discussion

8.  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].

9.  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.  The Court’s role is not to examine the decision maker’s decision afresh as if it were a fresh application for judicial review.  See Nupur Mst v Director of Immigration [2018] HKCA 524 at [14(6)].

10.  In light of the above, it is thus incumbent on the applicant to point out the errors in the Leave Decision with sufficient particulars and specifics.

11.  However, nowhere in his Notice of Appeal nor supporting affirmation did the applicant identify any error committed by the Judge with specific particulars.  His assertions are all general, bare and vague allegations unsupported by specific particulars or evidence.  General assertions of his fear if refouled do not constitute proper grounds of appeal: Re Saldua Dorothy Trifalgar [2022] HKCA 627 at [6].  The Court will not usurp the role of the Board.  Assessment of evidence, country of origin information materials, 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.  No such error was demonstrated by the applicant.  Clearly, his assertions do not constitute viable grounds of appeal and lack substance.  We see no basis to interfere with the Leave Decision.

12.  For the above reasons, the applicant’s appeal against the Leave Decision has no merit and is dismissed.