|
CACV 402/2024, [2025] HKCA 656
On Appeal From [2024] HKCFI 2312
IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
COURT OF APPEAL
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 402 OF 2024
(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO. 1786 OF 2019)
____________________
| RE: |
TRINH VAN LOC |
Applicant |
____________________
| Before : |
Hon Cheung and Chow JJA in Court |
| Date of Judgment : |
17 July 2025 |
____________________
JUDGMENT
____________________
Hon Cheung JA (giving the Judgment of the Court) :
1) The appeal
1. This is an appeal by the applicant against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge KW Lung of 16 September 2024 in which he refused to grant leave to the applicant to apply for judicial review. The applicant consented to his appeal being disposed of on paper by a written confirmation filed on 26 September 2024. No written submission was lodged to support his appeal.
2) Factual background
2. The applicant is a national of Vietnam. He claimed that he entered Hong Kong illegally on 3 December 2015 via the Mainland, and surrendered to the Immigration Department on 4 December 2015. The applicant applied for non‑refoulement protection by written representation on 4 May 2017[1].
3. The basis of the applicant’s claim is that he would be harmed or killed by his creditor Dinh Van Kham for non‑repayment of a loan[2].
4. The background facts have been summarized in the decision of the Judge at [4]-[8].
3) The Director’s Decision
5. The Director of Immigration (‘the Director’) decided against the applicant’s non-refoulement claim on 15 January 2018. The decision covered Bill of Rights Article 3 (torture/inhuman treatment) risk (‘BOR 3’), Bill of Rights Article 2 (right to life) risk (‘BOR 2’) as well as other statutory and convention rights against torture and persecution[3] (‘the Director’s Decision’).
4) The Board’s Decision
6. The applicant appealed against the Director’s Decision to the Torture Claims Appeal Board (‘the Board’). After a hearing held on 18 April 2019, the Board dismissed the applicant’s appeal on 21 June 2019 (‘the Board’s Decision’).
7. The Board’s reasoning and decision have been summarized in the decision of the Judge at [12]-[17].
5) Decision(s) of the Judge
8. The applicant filed his Form 86 supported with an affirmation. The applicant reiterated the background to his case. Details can be referred to the decision of the Judge at [18]-[19].
9. The Judge held that the applicant was unable to raise any valid reason to challenge the Board’s Decision. There was no reason for the Court to interfere with the Board’s finding of fact[4].
6) Grounds of appeal
10. The applicant in the notice of appeal stated the following in summary :
(1) The applicant’s life will be in danger if he returns to Vietnam as creditors and gangsters there are cruel and violent and different to those in Hong Kong;
(2) The Director’s suggestion of the applicant moving to another location is not feasible as the applicant will face many difficulties and obstacles and there is no guarantee that he will adapt;
(3) The creditors and gangsters that are after the applicant have a nationwide social network and can find the applicant’s residence in Vietnam; and
(4) The Immigration Department did not consider the applicant’s human rights under the law.
11. In the applicant’s affirmation, the following were stated :
(1) A good ground of appeal was not necessarily considered at the leave stage of judicial review; and
(2) The Director and the Board did not see grounds to reserve their decisions.
7) Our view
12. We are of the view that the applicant’s appeal is without merits. The applicant has provided no reasonably arguable grounds for judicial review. An appeal against refusal of leave for judicial review is not an occasion for the applicant to regurgitate arguments already advanced. The Court of Appeal would only reverse the decision of the Judge if it could be demonstrated that there were errors in law, that the Judge failed to take into account relevant matters, or the decision was otherwise plainly wrong : see United Muslim Association of Hong Kong v Yusuf Yu [2018] HKCA 451 at [38] and [39].
13. It is thus incumbent on the applicant to point out with sufficient particularity the errors allegedly committed by the Judge in assessing the Board’s Decision.
14. We see no basis to disturb the Judge’s decision. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.
(Peter Cheung)
Justice of Appeal |
(Anderson Chow)
Justice of Appeal |
| Applicant, unrepresented, acting in person |
[1] Director’s Decision [8];
[2] Director’s Decision [2], [5];
[3] Director’s Decision [9]-[11];
[4] Judge’s decision at [23];
|