RE NGUYEN THI KIM

CACV 960/2025, [2026] HKCA 671

On Appeal From [2025] HKCFI 4874

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 960 OF 2025

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO. 1071 OF 2025)

__________________

__________________

__________________

JUDGMENT

__________________

Hon Cheung JA (giving the Judgment of the Court) :

1.  This is the applicant’s appeal against the order of Deputy High Court Judge KW Lung dated 22 October 2025 ([2025] HKCFI 4874) (‘the Leave Decision’) refusing her application for leave to apply for judicial review (‘the Leave Application’) against the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office (‘the Board’) dated 28 April 2025 (‘the Board’s Decision’), whereby the Board dismissed her appeal/petition against the decision of the Director of Immigration (‘the Director’) dated 24 February 2025, refusing her non-refoulement claim.

2.  This appeal was scheduled to be heard on 8 April 2026. Despite the directions from the Court to the applicant dated 25 February 2026 (‘Directions’), the applicant failed to lodge written submission by the stipulated time. Accordingly, by [5] of the Directions, the hearing of the appeal was vacated and the Court will now deal with this appeal on paper.

3.  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 are all set out in the Board’s Decision: see [4]-[5], [8]-[10] of the Leave Decision[1].

4.  The applicant is a national of Vietnam. She claimed to have arrived in Hong Kong in July 2024 but she overstayed. She made a non-refoulement claim in August or September 2024. The basis of her claim is that if she returned to Vietnam, she would be harmed or killed by her creditor, Nguyen Tuan Anh as she has not repaid her loan[2].

5.  The Judge also sets out in detail the grounds advanced by the applicant in support of the Leave Application and his reasons for refusing the Leave Application: see [11]-[18] of the Leave Decision. We will not repeat the details herein.

6.  By the Notice of Appeal filed on 3 November 2025, the applicant stated the following in summary:

1) The applicant will risk being harmed or killed by her creditor over the unpaid debts if she returns to Vietnam because the creditor is willing to kill people to satisfy their anger;

2) Internal relocation is not feasible; and

3) The Immigration Department did not consider her human rights.

7.  In her affirmation filed on 3 November 2025, the applicant stated that she had a good ground of appeal that was not considered at the leave stage. The Director/Board ‘did not see grounds to reserve their decisions’.

Discussion

8.  The relevant legal principles governing appeals in non-refoulement cases are set out in Nupur Mst v Director of Immigration [2018] HKCA 524 at [14].

9.  In particular, in an appeal against refusal of leave to apply for judicial review in non­refoulement cases, 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. The Court’s role is not to examine the decision maker’s decision afresh as if it were a fresh application for judicial review. See Nupur Mst v Director of Immigration [2018] HKCA 524 at [14(6)].

10.  In light of the above, it is thus incumbent on the applicant to point out the errors in the Leave Decision with sufficient particulars and specifics.

11.  However, nowhere in her Notice of Appeal nor supporting affirmation[3] did the applicant identify any error committed by the Judge with specific particulars. Her assertions are all general, bare and vague allegations unsupported by specific particulars or evidence. General assertions of her fear if refouled do not constitute proper grounds of appeal: Re Saldua Dorothy Trifalgar [2022] HKCA 627 at [6]. The Court will not usurp the role of the Board. Assessment of evidence, country of origin information materials, 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. No such error was demonstrated by the applicant. Clearly, her assertions do not constitute viable grounds of appeal and lack substance. We see no basis to interfere with the Leave Decision.

12.  For the above reasons, the applicant’s appeal against the Leave Decision has no merit and is dismissed.