HOANG THI HOA v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

CACV 987/2025, [2026] HKCA 190

On Appeal From [2025] HKCFI 4743

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 987 OF 2025

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 1047 OF 2025)

_________________

_________________

_________________

J U D G M E N T

_________________

Hon Eugene Fung J (giving the Judgment of the Court):

Introduction

1.  This is an appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge K. W. Lung (“Judge”) on 30 October 2025 refusing leave to apply for judicial review against the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board/adjudicator of the Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office (“Board”) dated 22 April 2025. In that decision, the Board upheld the decision of the Director of Immigration (“Director”) dated 28 January 2025 rejecting the applicant’s non-refoulement claim.

Background

2.  The applicant is a national of Vietnam born in 1983 and her claim was made on the basis that if she returned to Vietnam, her creditor (Hai) would harm or kill him due to her inability to repay a loan. Details of the applicant’s background, the basis of her claim and the arguments advanced before the Board as well as the Board’s reasons for rejecting her appeal have all been set out in the Board’s decision: see [4] of the Form CALL-1. The Judge has set out the grounds advanced by the applicant in support of the application for leave to apply for judicial review and his reasons for refusing leave: see [11] – [16] of the Form CALL-1. We shall not repeat them here.

Appeal to this Court

3.  On 10 November 2025, the applicant filed her Notice of Appeal against the Judge’s decision. Her stated grounds of appeal were, essentially, that she would be killed or harmed by her creditor, that the Director’s suggestion of internal relocation was not feasible, and that her human rights were not considered.

4.  The applicant has lodged written submissions in which she stated that (1) the Board took into account of the irrelevant matter that the creditors only wanted repayment without considering the relevant matter that she suffered injuries from her creditor before; (2) in light of the high standards of fairness, the Board should have actively questioned the applicant further about her creditor before concluding that her creditor had no connection with the state; (3) the Board did not critically assess the country of origin information it relied on; (4) the Board was irrational in finding that the applicant’s claim did not meet the minimum level of severity; and (5) the Board did not take relevant matters into consideration when finding that internal relocation was viable.  

5.  At the hearing, the applicant stated that she had nothing to add. She only hoped that the judges would understand that her life was still in danger and that she could be allowed to remain in Hong Kong for a while.

Discussion

6.  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.

7.  In the present case, the Board found that there was no real risk of harm upon refoulement as alleged, because it found the applicant’s claim to be incredible and improbable. Even if the applicant’s claim were to be believed, the Board would still dismiss the applicant’s appeal because it did not attain the minimum level of severity. The Board considered that the dispute involving the applicant was a private one without state involvement, and internal relocation to Can Tho and Ho Ching Ming City would be viable. These are findings of fact open to the Board based on the evidence it received and for the reasons it gave. The Board had provided its thorough reasoning and analysis in its decision. Moreover, the applicant was offered an opportunity to make oral submissions by the Board but she declined: see [43] of the Board’s decision. The applicant has failed to show any reasonably arguable public law error in relation to the Board’s decision.     

8.  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.

9.  The applicant’s appeal is accordingly dismissed.

10.  As all of the applicant’s documents are in the English language, as per the usual practice, we will issue this judgment in English. If required, the applicant may make arrangement with the Court for this judgment to be interpreted orally.