RE NGUYEN XUAN BO

________________________

________________________

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 KW Lung (“the Judge”)  dated 2 December 2025 ([2025] HKCFI 5782)  (“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 7 May 2025 (“the Board’s Decision”), whereby the Board dismissed his appeal against the decision of the Director of Immigration dated 20 February 2025, refusing his non-refoulement claim.

2.  The appeal was listed to be heard on 2 February 2026.  By the directions made by the Registrar of Civil Appeals on 12 December 2025, which were received by the applicant in person on the same day, he was directed to lodge two sets of skeleton argument on or before 19 January 2026, failing which, he would be deemed to have waived his right to have an oral hearing for the appeal and the hearing date would be vacated with the appeal being determined on paper.  However, he did not lodge any skeleton argument in support of his appeal.

3.  As the applicant failed to lodge any skeleton argument by the stipulated time, he was deemed to have waived his right to have an oral hearing and elected to have his appeal disposed of on paper.  The hearing date was thus vacated on 20 January 2026.

4.  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 [4] - [10] of the Leave Decision.  The Judge also sets out in detail the grounds advanced by the applicant in support of the Leave Application and the Judge’s reasons for refusing the Leave Application: see [11] - [18] of the Leave Decision.  We will not repeat the details herein.

5.  By the Notice of Appeal filed on 12 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.

6.  By his supporting affirmation filed on 12 December 2025, the applicant also asserted that he understood “there [was] a good ground of appeal that was not necessarily considered at the stage of applying for leave for judicial review” and that he “was informed that the Director of Immigration and the Adjudicator did not see the grounds to reverse their decisions”.  Again, the applicant failed to give any particulars or details on the alleged “good ground”.

DISCUSSION

7.  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].

8.  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)].

9.  Nowhere in his Notice of Appeal or supporting affirmation has the applicant identified any error committed by the Judge.  All his allegations and submissions are directed at the Board.  As properly noted by the Judge at [15] 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: Re Kartini [2019] HKCA 1022 at [13].  The Judge was clearly correct in finding his challenges against the Board’s Decision to be invalid: see [16] of the Leave Decision.  

10.  In any event, 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, the applicant’s assertions do not constitute viable grounds of appeal and must fail.  We see no basis to interfere with the Leave Decision.

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