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

CACV 655/2025, [2026] HKCA 691

On Appeal From [2025] HKCFI 3451

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 655 OF 2025

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 1155 OF 2020)

________________________

BETWEEN

_____________________

_____________________

JUDGMENT

_____________________

The Court:

INTRODUCTION

1.  This is the Applicant’s appeal against the order of Deputy High Court Judge (Non-refoulement Claims) Val Chow (“the Judge”) dated 15 August 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 24 November 2017 (“the Board’s Decision”).

BACKGROUND

2.  The Applicant is a national of Vietnam. On 24 February 2014, the Applicant lodged a non-refoulement claim on the basis that, if refouled, she would be harmed or killed by her creditor over her unpaid debts.[1] The Applicant also claimed that her boyfriend was shot dead by the creditor’s associates in Thailand and she was forced by the creditor to traffic dangerous drugs in Vietnam.[2] The Applicant’s non-refoulement claim was rejected by the Director of Immigration (“the Director”) on 29 August 2016 and 4 January 2017, and the appeal against the Director’s decisions was rejected by the Board on 24 November 2017. 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, the hyperlink to which can be found in the CALL-1 Form dated 15 August 2025.[3]

3.  The Applicant’s application for leave to apply for judicial review was refused by the Judge on 15 August 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 28 August 2025, the Applicant essentially argues that she would be beaten or even killed by the creditor if she returned, that the Director failed to appreciate or properly assess the viability of internal relocation, and that the Director failed to consider her human rights.

5.  In the skeleton arguments lodged on 23 February 2026, the Applicant argues that:

(1) The Board took irrelevant matter into consideration and failed to take relevant matters into consideration.

(2) The Board failed to apply a high standard of fairness.

(3) The Board failed to exercise independent assessment.

(4) The Board’s decision was irrational.

6.  At the hearing on 25 March 2026, the applicant had nothing to add to her written submissions.

DISCUSSION & DISPOSITION

7.  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)).

8.  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.

9.  The matters raised in the Applicant’s Notice of Appeal are all general allegations without particulars whereas the complaints in the skeleton arguments are directed at the Board. They do not relate to the Judge’s reasons for refusing to grant leave to the Applicant to apply for judicial review and 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].

10.  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.

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