RE PHAM VAN LOC

CACV 1186/2025, [2026] HKCA 280

On Appeal From [2025] HKCFI 5923

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 1186 OF 2025

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 440 OF 2021)

_______________

_______________

J U D G M E N T

_______________

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

1.  This is the applicant’s appeal against the order of Deputy High Court Judge To (“the Judge”) dated 5 December 2025 ([2025] HKCFI 5923) (“the Leave Decision”) refusing his 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 January 2021 (“the Board’s Decision”), whereby the Board dismissed his appeal against the decision of the Director of Immigration dated 21 September 2021, refusing his non‑refoulement claim.

2.  The applicant’s background, the basis of his claim and arguments advanced before the Board as well as the Board’s reasons for rejecting his appeal are all set out in the Board’s Decision: see [1] ‑ [7] of the Leave Decision.  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 [8] ‑ [10] of the Leave Decision.  We will not repeat the details herein.

3.  By the Notice of Appeal filed on 15 December 2025, the applicant mainly reiterated his fear of being killed and harmed upon refoulement, and that he considered internal relocation unfeasible as he would face difficulties and obstacles.  He also alleged that the Immigration Department failed to consider his human rights under various legislations, but failed to condescend upon particulars.

4.  The applicant lodged written submissions on 19 January 2026.  In those submissions, he complained that:

(1)     The Board took into account irrelevant matter that creditors only wanted repayment without paying due regard to the relevant matter that the applicant suffered grievous bodily harm and mental suffering;

(2)     The Board failed to apply high standards of fairness as the applicant should be invited to make further representations;

(3)     The Board failed to exercise independent assessment on the credibility and veracity of the country of origin information;

(4)     The Board had been irrational in holding that the applicant had not adduced sufficient evidence that his physical injury and mental suffering had met the minimum level of severity as required by law; and

(5)     The Board had failed to take relevant matters into consideration in holding that internal relocation would be feasible.

5.  We heard the appeal on 2 February 2026.  A Vietnamese interpreter was present to provide language assistance. During the hearing, he confirmed that he had nothing further to add to what have already been set out in the written submissions and documents already filed in support of his appeal and further repeated that he wanted to stay in Hong Kong.

DISCUSSION

6.  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].

7.  In particular, in an appeal against refusal of leave to apply for judicial review in non-refoulement 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)].

8.  Nowhere in his Notice of Appeal or submissions did the applicant identify any error committed by the Judge.  All his submissions are directed at the Board.  As properly noted by the Judge at [9] of the Leave Decision, the Court will not interfere the findings of fact made by the Board, as they are exclusively within the realm of the Board, unless there are errors of law or procedural unfairness or irrationality in the decision of the Board. The Judge was clearly correct in finding no such error in his case.

9.  Moreover, his assertions are all general, bare and vague allegations unsupported by specific particulars or evidence.  General assertions of his fear if refouled do not constitute proper grounds of appeal: Re Saldua Dorothy Trifalgar [2022] HKCA 627 at [6].  Clearly, his assertions do not constitute viable grounds of appeal and must fail.  We see no basis to interfere with the Leave Decision.

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