LE THI HUONG v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

CACV 728/2025, [2026] HKCA 231

On appeal from [2025] HKCFI 3790

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 728 OF 2025

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO. 1358 OF 2019)

__________________________

__________________________

________________

J U D G M E N T

________________

The Court:

Introduction

1.  This is the applicant’s appeal against the decision of High Court Judge ST Poon (“the Judge”) given in the Form CALL-1 and the Order dated 5 September 2025[1] refusing her application for leave to apply for judicial review against the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board (the “Board”) dated 15 May 2019 (the “Board’s Decision”) whereby the Board dismissed her appeal against the decision of the Director of Immigration (the “Director”) dated 6 January 2017 (the “Director’s Decision”) rejecting her non‑refoulement protection claim.

The applicant’s claim and the Judge’s decision

2.  The applicant is a national of Vietnam. In her non-refoulement claim form filed with the Immigration Department, her claim is put on the basis that, if refouled, she would be harmed or killed by her creditor over her unpaid debts. The applicant’s non-refoulement claim was rejected by the Director, and her appeal against it was rejected by the Board on 15 May 2019. 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.

3.  The applicant’s application for leave to apply for judicial review was refused by the Judge and details of the Judge’s reasons for refusing to grant leave can be found in the Form CALL-1.

The appeal

4.  By a notice of appeal filed on 12 September 2025, the applicant sought to appeal the Judge’s decision to this court and her grounds of appeal can be summarised as follows:

a.  The applicant will face the risk of being harmed or killed by her creditor if she is returned to her home country;

b.  Internal relocation as suggested in the Director’s decision is not feasible;

c.  The Director did not consider her human rights under the Basic Law, Hong Kong Human Rights and Democracy Act, International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights.

5.  The appeal was heard on 10 February 2026. The applicant attended the hearing in person with the assistance of a Vietnamese interpreter and had nothing to add to her skeleton arguments.

6.  In the applicant’s skeleton arguments lodged on 29 December 2025, her arguments can be summarised as follows:

(1)  the Board had taken irrelevant matters into consideration and failed to take relevant matters into consideration;

(2)  the Board had failed to apply a high standard of fairness;

(3)  the Board had failed to exercise independent assessment;

(4)  the Board’s decision was irrational.

7.  However, apart from her skeleton arguments above, the applicant did not indicate any complaint against or identify any error made by the Judge in dismissing her application for leave to take out a judicial review.

Our reasons for decision

8.  The Court of Appeal’s general approach in dealing with appeals in non-refoulement cases is set out in Nupur Mst v Director of Immigration [2018] HKCA 524, at §14. In particular, 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 is a fresh application for judicial review (see Nupur Mst, at §14(6)).

9.  Further, 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 below will not intervene by way of judicial review unless there is an error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the decision of the Board: Re Kartini [2019] HKCA 1022.

10.  In the present case, no such error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the decision of the Board was observed by the Judge or was pointed out by the applicant apart from the mere assertions as stated in her grounds of appeal, which were not substantiated with any specific information or elaboration as to how they apply to her present appeal.

11.  It is incumbent on the applicant to point out the Judge's errors with sufficient particulars. We are of the view that the matters set out in the notice of appeal or her skeleton arguments failed to identify any error on the part of the Judge. They do not constitute any viable grounds of appeal and lack substance. We see no basis to interfere with the Judge’s decision.

12.  For the above reasons, the applicant’s appeal is devoid of merits. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal.