NGUYEN NGOC LINH v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD

CACV 366/2025, [2026] HKCA 550

On Appeal From [2025] HKCFI 2162

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 366 OF 2025

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 2710 OF 2019)

________________________

_____________________

_______________

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 Bruno Chan (“the Judge”) dated 29 May 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 22 March 2019 (“the Board’s Decision”).

BACKGROUND

2.  The Applicant is a national of Vietnam. On 5 October 2015, the Applicant lodged a non-refoulement claim on the basis that, if refouled, he would be harmed or killed by his creditor over his unpaid debts.[1]  The Applicant’s claim was rejected by the Director of Immigration (“the Director”) on 27 February 2017, and the appeal against the Director’s decision was rejected by the Board on 22 March 2019. Details of the Applicant’s claim and the Board’s reasons for rejecting the Applicant’s appeal can be found in the CALL-1 Form dated 29 May 2025.  

3.  The Applicant’s application for leave to apply for judicial review was refused by the Judge on 29 May 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 4 June 2025, the Applicant states the following that:

“… the grounds of this appeal are that the gravity of my circumstances have noted been weighed or realized by both putative Respondents while considering my non-refoulement claim. I should be given an opportunity to plead my case properly.” (sic)

5.  In the supporting affirmation of the same date, the Applicant the Applicant states that there was a good ground of appeal that was not necessarily considered in the application for judicial review and that the Director and the Board “did not see the grounds to reserve their decisions”.

6.  In the 7-page written submissions filed on 27 January 2026, the Applicant reiterates the general principles about the “high standards of fairness” required in determination of a torture claim on the part of the decision maker, and argues that the Board acted in a procedurally unfair manner in dealing with his application without properly assessing his creditability.

7.  At the hearing on 13 March 2026, the Applicant reiterated that he was born in Hong Kong which he regards as his second home and asked to stay in Hong Kong.

DISCUSSION & DISPOSITION

8.  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)).

9.  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.

10.  The matters raised in the Applicant’s Notice of Appeal, supporting affirmation and written submissions are all general allegations without particulars. They do not constitute any valid grounds of appeal against the Judge’s decision.

11.  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.

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