PHAM THI DINH v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

CACV 454/2025, [2026] HKCA 358

On Appeal From [2025] HKCFI 2537

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 454 OF 2025

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 82 OF 2024)

____________

____________

_________________

J U D G M E N T

_________________

Hon G Lam JA (giving the Judgment of the Court):

Introduction

1.  This is an appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge To (“Judge”) on 17 June 2025 refusing to grant leave to the applicant to apply for judicial review against the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board/adjudicator of the Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office (“Board”) dated 29 December 2023.  In that decision, the Board upheld the decision of the Director of Immigration (“Director”) dated 3 November 2023 rejecting the applicant’s non-refoulement claim.

Background

2.  The applicant is a national of Vietnam born in 1984 and her claim was made on the basis that if she returned to Vietnam, her creditor (Pham Thi Quen) would harm or kill her due to her inability to repay a loan.  Details of the applicant’s background, the basis of her claim and arguments advanced before the Board as well as the Board’s reasons for rejecting her appeal have been summarized by the Judge: see [3] – [15] of the Form CALL-1.  The Judge has set out the grounds advanced by the applicant in support of the application and his reasons for refusal of the application: see [16] – [18] of the Form CALL-1.

Appeal to this Court

3.  On 30 June 2025, the applicant filed her Notice of Appeal against the Judge’s decision.  Her stated grounds of appeal were, essentially, that there was a good ground of appeal that was not considered by the Judge and that the Judge had not given her an opportunity to clarify her case and the situation in her country.  No particulars were provided by the applicant.

4.  The applicant has given consent in writing for this appeal to be disposed of on paper without an oral hearing, and we shall accordingly determine the appeal on the basis of the available documents and materials.

Discussion

5.  In assessing the merits of the appeal, we shall have regard to the legal principles which this Court has adopted in dealing with appeals in non-refoulement cases: see Nupur Mst v Director of Immigration [2018] HKCA 524 at [14]; Re Md Shohel Sheak [2018] HKCA 714 at [13]; and Re Limbu Birkhaman [2019] HKCA 50 at [11].  In particular, the role of the Court in a judicial review is not to provide a further avenue of appeal.  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.  In the determination of an appeal against the refusal of leave by the Court of First Instance, 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.  It is not the role of this Court to examine the decision of the Board afresh as if the appeal were a fresh application for judicial review.

6.  In the present case, the Board found that there was no real risk of harm upon refoulement as alleged, because it was a private loan dispute between citizens, it did not attain a minimum level of severity, country of origin information revealed that the Vietnamese government has been combatting corruption and improving the efficiency of their police, and internal relocation to Ho Chi Minh, Hanoi, Da Nang or any other city aside from her hometown would be a viable option for the applicant. These are findings of fact open to the Board based on the evidence it received and for the reasons it gave. The applicant has failed to show any reasonably arguable public law error in relation to the Board’s decision.

7.  Equally, the applicant has not been able to demonstrate any error in the decision of the Judge or advance any viable ground of appeal against the Judge’s decision.  The applicant appeared at the scheduled hearing before the Judge, so she had ample opportunity to make oral submissions and clarify her case, contrary to one of her grounds of appeal.  We are not satisfied that there is any error in the Judge’s decision.

8.  The applicant’s appeal is accordingly dismissed.