VU MINH NGOC v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION

CACV 751/2025, [2026] HKCA 876

On Appeal From [2025] HKCFI 3806

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 751 OF 2025

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 993 OF 2021)

________________________

_____________________

________________

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 4 September 2025 (“the Order”) refusing to grant leave to apply for judicial review of the decision of the Director of Immigration (“the Director”) on 2 July 2021 (the Director’s Decision”).

BACKGROUND

2.  The Applicant is a national of Vietnam.[1]  On 1 March 2021, the Applicant made a request in writing to the Director to make a subsequent claim on the basis that if refouled, he would be harmed or killed by another money-lender over his unpaid debts.[2]  On 2 July 2021, the Director refused the Applicant’s request to make a subsequent claim. Details of the Applicant’s basis of making a subsequent claim and the Director’s reasons for rejecting the Applicant’s request to make a subsequent claim can be found in the Form CALL-1 dated 4 September 2025.

3.  The Applicant’s application for leave to apply for judicial review was refused by the Judge on 4 September 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 16 September 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.