VU THI QUYNH v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD

CACV 771/2025, [2026] HKCA 877

On Appeal From [2025] HKCFI 3901

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 771 OF 2025

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 1520 OF 2020)

________________________

_____________________

________________

J U D G M E N T

________________

The Court:

INTRODUCTION

1.  This is the Applicant’s appeal against the order of Deputy High Court Judge Bruno Chan (“the Judge”) dated 11 September 2025 (“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 10 July 2020 (“the Board’s Decision”).

BACKGROUND

2.  The Applicant is a national of Vietnam. On 8 August 2019, the Applicant lodged a non-refoulement claim on the basis that, if refouled, she would be harmed or killed by her creditor over her unpaid debt. The Applicant’s non-refoulement claim was rejected by the Director of Immigration (“the Director”) on 27 December 2019, and the appeal against the Director’s decision was rejected by the Board on 10 July 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 dated 11 September 2025.[1]

3.  The Applicant’s application for leave to apply for judicial review was refused by the Judge on 11 September 2025. Details of the Judge’s reasons for refusing to grant leave can be found in the Form CALL-1.

GROUNDS OF APPEAL

4.  In the Notice of Appeal filed on 19 September 2025, the Applicant essentially argues that she would be beaten or even killed by her creditor and his men if she returned, that the Director failed to properly assess the viability of internal relocation, and that the Director failed to consider her human rights.  In the supporting affirmation, the Applicant states that there was a good ground of appeal that was not necessarily considered in the application for judicial review, and that the Director and the Board “did not see the grounds to reserve their decisions”.

5.  In the skeleton arguments filed on 9 March 2026, the Applicant argues that:

(1)  The Board took irrelevant matter into consideration and failed to take relevant matters into consideration.

(2)  The Board failed to apply a high standard of fairness.

(3)  The Board failed to exercise independent assessment.

(4)  The Board’s decision was irrational.

6.  The above written submissions were lodged beyond the deadline imposed by the Registrar of Civil Appeals on 12 February 2026. Accordingly, the Applicant is deemed to have waived the right to have an oral hearing of the appeal and elect to have the appeal disposed of on paper. Having considered the documents before us, we consider that it is appropriate to deal with the Applicant’s appeal on paper without an oral hearing.

DISCUSSION & DISPOSITION

7.  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)).

8.  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.

9.  The matters raised in the Applicant’s Notice of Appeal and supporting affirmation are all general allegations without particulars whereas the complaints in the skeleton arguments are directed at the Board. They do not relate to the Judge’s reasons for refusing to grant leave to the Applicant to apply for judicial review and do not constitute any valid grounds of appeal against the Judge’s decision. Furthermore, general assertions of fear if refouled do not constitute proper grounds of appeal: Re Saldua Dorothy Trifalgar [2022] HKCA 627 at [6].

10.  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.

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