RE NGUYEN TRUNG SON

CACV 547/2024, [2025] HKCA 740

On Appeal From [2025] HKCFI 347

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 547 OF 2024

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO. 2136 OF 2019)

____________________

____________________

____________________

JUDGMENT

____________________

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

1)  The appeal

1.  This is an appeal by the applicant against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge KW Lung of 3 December 2024 in which he refused to grant leave to the applicant to apply for judicial review.  The applicant consented to his appeal being disposed of on paper by a written confirmation filed on 13 December 2024.  No written submission was lodged to support his appeal.

2)  Factual background

2.  The applicant is a national of Vietnam.  He claimed that he entered Hong Kong illegally on 5 November 2015 via the Mainland, and was arrested on 20 November 2015.  The applicant applied for non‑refoulement protection by written representation in November and December 2015[1].

3.  The basis of the applicant’s claim is that he would be harmed or killed by his creditor Bien or his subordinates for non‑repayment of a loan[2].  

4.  The background facts have been summarized in the decision of the Judge at [4]-[6].

3)  The Director’s Decision

5.  The Director of Immigration (‘the Director’) decided against the applicant’s non-refoulement claim on 24 February 2017.  The decision covered Bill of Rights Article 3 (torture/inhuman treatment) risk (‘BOR 3’), Bill of Rights Article 2 (right to life) risk (‘BOR 2’) as well as other statutory and convention rights against torture and persecution[3] (‘the Director’s Decision’).

4)  The Board’s Decision

6.  The applicant appealed/petitioned against the Director’s Decision to the Torture Claims Appeal Board (‘the Board’).  After a hearing held on 6 June 2019, the Board dismissed the applicant’s appeal on 11 July 2019 (‘the Board’s Decision’).

7.  The Board’s reasoning and decision have been summarized in the decision of the Judge at [9].

5)  Decision(s) of the Judge

8.  The applicant filed his Form 86 supported with an affirmation.  No specific grounds were provided to challenge the Board’s Decision.  Details can be referred to the decision of the Judge at [10]-[11].

9.  The Judge held that although the Board may have exaggerated its reasoning against the applicant’s case, such exaggeration did not adversely impugn the Board’s Decision or advance the applicant’s case.  There was no reason for the Court to interfere with the Board’s finding of fact[4].

6)  Grounds of appeal

10.  The applicant in the notice of appeal stated the following in summary :

(1)  The applicant’s life will be in danger if he returns to Vietnam as creditors and gangsters there are cruel and violent and different to those in Hong Kong;

(2)  The Director’s suggestion of the applicant moving to another location is not feasible as the applicant will face many difficulties and obstacles and there is no guarantee that he will adapt;

(3)  The creditors and gangsters that are after the applicant have a nationwide social network and can find the applicant’s residence in Vietnam; and

(4)  The Immigration Department did not consider the applicant’s human rights under the law.

11.  In the applicant’s affirmation, the following were stated :

(1)  A good ground of appeal was not necessarily considered at the leave stage of the application for judicial review; and

(2)  The Director and the Board ‘did not see the grounds to reserve their decisions’.

7)  Our view

12.  We are of the view that the applicant’s appeal is without merits.  The applicant has provided no reasonably arguable grounds for judicial review.  An appeal against refusal of leave for judicial review is not an occasion for the applicant to regurgitate arguments already advanced.  The Court of Appeal would only reverse the decision of the Judge if it could be demonstrated that there were errors in law, that the Judge failed to take into account relevant matters, or the decision was otherwise plainly wrong : see United Muslim Association of Hong Kong v Yusuf Yu [2018] HKCA 451 at [38] and [39].

13.  It is thus incumbent on the applicant to point out with sufficient particularity the errors allegedly committed by the Judge in assessing the Board’s Decision.

14.  We see no basis to disturb the Judge’s decision.  Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.