LUONG HOANG SON v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

CACV 681/2025, [2026] HKCA 662

On appeal from [2025] HKCFI 3738

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 681 OF 2025

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 701 OF 2020)

__________________________

__________________________

________________

J U D G M E N T

________________

The Court:

Introduction

1.  This is the applicant’s appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge (Non-refoulement Claims) YW Hew (“the Judge”) dated 26 August 2025[1] refusing his application for leave to apply for judicial review against the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board (the “Board”) dated 26 March 2020 (the “Board’s Decision”) whereby the Board dismissed his appeal against the decision of the Director of Immigration (the “Director”) dated 26 November 2019 (the “Director’s Decision”).

The applicant’s claim and the Judge’s decision

2.  The applicant is a national of Vietnam. In his non-refoulement claim form filed with the Immigration Department on 31 October 2019, he lodged a claim on the basis that, if refouled, he would be harmed or killed by his creditor for failing to pay his debt. The applicant’s non-refoulement claim was rejected by the Director, and his appeal against it was rejected by the Board on 26 March 2020. 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 Form CALL-1.

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 3 September 2025, the applicant sought to appeal the Judge’s decision to this court. The applicant’s grounds of appeal can be summarised as follows :-

(1)  The applicant will still face the risk of being harmed or killed by his creditor if he is returned to his home country;

(2)  Internal relocation as suggested in the Director’s decision is not feasible;

(3)  The Director did not consider his 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; and

(4)  He seeks justice and asks for asylum in Hong Kong.

5.  The appeal was scheduled to be heard on 29 January 2026. However, the applicant has failed to lodge any skeleton argument in support of his appeal on or before 24 December 2025 in accordance with the directions given by the Registrar of Civil Appeals on 8 December 2025. Accordingly, the applicant is deemed to have waived his right to have an oral hearing of the appeal, and elected to have the appeal disposed of on paper.

6.  The applicant only lodged his skeleton submissions on 12 January 2026, which we will consider the same out of caution, and his 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 his submissions above, the applicant did not indicate any complaint against or identify any error made by the Judge in dismissing his 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 will not intervene by way of judicial review unless there is an error of law or procedural unfairness or irrationality in the decision of the Board: Re Kartini [2019] HKCA 1022. In the present case, no such error of law or 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 his grounds of appeal, which were not substantiated with any specific information or elaboration as to how they apply to his present appeal.

10.  It is incumbent on the applicant to point out the Judge's errors with sufficient particulars and specifics. We are of the view that the matters set out in the notice of appeal or his written submissions 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.

11.  The appeal is accordingly dismissed.