DO NGOC BINH v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

CACV 197/2026, [2026] HKCA 940

On Appeal From [2026] HKCFI 1125

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 197 OF 2026

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 692 OF 2021)

________________________

BETWEEN

_____________________

_____________________

JUDGMENT

_____________________

Deputy High Court Judge Yuen (giving the Judgment of the Court) :

INTRODUCTION

1.  This is the Applicant’s appeal against the order of DHCJ To (“the Judge”) dated 26 February 2026 (“the Order”) refusing to grant leave to apply for judicial review of the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office (“the Board”) dated 27 April 2021 (“the Board’s Decision”).

BACKGROUND

2.  The Applicant is a national of Vietnam. On 26 September 2014, the Applicant lodged a non-refoulement claim on the basis that, if refouled, he would be harmed or killed by his wife’s creditors who had a triad background.[1] The Applicant’s claim was rejected by the Director of Immigration (“the Director”) on 3 July 2020, and the appeal against the Director’s decision was rejected by the Board on 27 April 2021. 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 CALL-1 Form dated 26 February 2026.[2]

3.  The Applicant’s application for leave to apply for judicial review was refused by the Judge on 26 February 2026. Details of the Judge’s reasons for refusing to grant leave can be found in the CALL-1 Form.

GROUNDS OF APPEAL

4.  In the Notice of Appeal filed on 4 March 2026, the Applicant states the following:

“1. It is evident from the Director’s Decision that the director failed to appreciate or give proper importance or weightage to the presence of state acquiescence in the applicant’s case. This resulted in an unfair outcome, where the applicant’s non-refoulement claim was rejected.

2. The applicant submits that the Director, the Adjudicator and the Court failed to consider this argument or that the Director did not give sufficient weight to it before reaching the Decision.

3. The Adjudicator failed to conduct adequate inquiries before finalizing the determination. The Adjudicator stated that I had failed to provide any credible evidence to prove material elements of my claim.

4. Surprisingly, in the applicant’s Decision, the Director included meanings from relevant COI’s that the applicant’s pre-conceived conclusion. This demonstrates a clear case of unfair attitude shown by the Director, which in itself is sufficient to render the applicant’s Decision void.

5. The grounds of this appeal are that the gravity of the applicant’s circumstances has not been properly weighed or recognized by both putative Respondents when considering the applicant’s non-refoulement claim. The Applicant request an opportunity to present the applicant’s case adequately.” (sic)

5.  In the written submissions filed on 19 March 2026, the Applicant reiterates the general principles about the “high standards of fairness” required in determination of a torture claim on the part of the decision maker. The Applicant also argues that the Adjudicator acted in a procedurally unfair manner in dealing with the Applicant’s application without properly assessing his credibility but no details are given. No arguments are advanced as to how the Judge had erred.

LEGAL PRINCIPLES

6.  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 was a fresh application for judicial review (see Nupur Mst v Director of Immigration [2018] HKCA 524, at §14(6)).

7.  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 are errors of law or procedural unfairness or irrationality in the decision of the Board: Re Kartini [2019] HKCA 1022.

DISCUSSION & DISPOSITION

8.  The matters raised in the Applicant’s Notice of Appeal and written submissions are all general allegations without particulars. They do not constitute any valid grounds of appeal against the Judge’s decision.

9.  The Applicant has failed to identify or show any error in the Judge’s decision refusing to grant leave to apply for judicial review, or raise any viable ground of appeal against the Order.

10.  The Applicant’s appeal has no merit, and is dismissed.