PHAM THI THUY LIEU v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

CACV 143/2026, [2026] HKCA 949

On Appeal From [2026] HKCFI 976

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 143 OF 2026

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 1366 OF 2025)

____________

____________

_________________

J U D G M E N T

_________________

Hon G Lam JA (giving the Judgment of the Court):

Introduction

1.  This is an appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge K.W. Lung (“Judge”) on 13 February 2026 refusing to grant leave to the applicant to apply for judicial review against the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board/adjudicator of the Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office (“Board”) dated 9 June 2025.  In that decision, the Board upheld the decision of the Director of Immigration (“Director”) dated 13 December 2024 rejecting the applicant’s non-refoulement claim.

Background

2.  The applicant is a national of Vietnam born in 1976 and her claim was made on the basis that if she returned to Vietnam, her creditor (Nguyen Tuan) would harm or kill her due to her inability to repay a loan.  Details of the applicant’s background, the basis of her claim and arguments advanced before the Board as well as the Board’s reasons for rejecting her appeal are all set out in the Board’s decision: see [5] of the Form CALL-1.  The Judge has set out the grounds advanced by the applicant in support of the application and his reasons for refusal of the application: see [12] – [17] of the Form CALL-1.

Appeal to this Court

3.  On 23 February 2026, the applicant filed her Notice of Appeal against the Judge’s decision.  Her stated grounds of appeal were, essentially, that she would be beaten or even killed by her creditor, that internal relocation is infeasible for her, and that the Director failed to consider her human rights.

4.  The applicant has lodged skeleton arguments in which she stated that the Board considered irrelevant matters to the effect of under-estimating the applicant’s risk of harm, that the Board failed to invite further submissions from the applicant on matters that required clarification, that the Board relied on country of origin information without critical assessment of its credibility, that the Board acted irrationally by finding that the applicant’s case did not meet the minimum level of severity, and that the Board failed to consider relevant matters in finding that internal relocation was viable for the applicant.

5.  At the hearing, the applicant stated that she would like to stay in Hong Kong as she would be killed if she returned to Vietnam.  She also said that the creditor always comes to her house to threaten her, so she did not dare to return to Vietnam.

6.  On 7 May 2026, the applicant filed a letter requesting for withdrawal of her appeal, as her life was now safe if she went back to Vietnam. 

Discussion

7.  Although the applicant has made a written request for the withdrawal of her appeal, we shall nevertheless briefly discuss the merits of her appeal.  

8.  In assessing the merits of the appeal, we shall have regard to the legal principles which this Court has adopted in dealing with appeals in non-refoulement cases: see Nupur Mst v Director of Immigration [2018] HKCA 524 at [14]; Re Md Shohel Sheak [2018] HKCA 714 at [13]; and Re Limbu Birkhaman [2019] HKCA 50 at [11].  In particular, the role of the Court in a judicial review is not to provide a further avenue of appeal.  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.  In the determination of an appeal against the refusal of leave by the Court of First Instance, 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.  It is not the role of this Court to examine the decision of the Board afresh as if the appeal were a fresh application for judicial review.

9.  In the present case, the Board found that there was no real risk of harm upon refoulement as alleged, because it was a private, monetary dispute without state involvement, her ill-treatment did not reach the minimum level of severity, reasonable state protection would be available, and internal relocation to Can Tho and Da Nang would be viable options for the applicant.   These are findings of fact open to the Board based on the evidence it received and for the reasons it gave.  In addition, it is apparent from the Board’s decision that the applicant did give oral submissions and did provide clarification at the hearing.  The applicant has failed to show any reasonably arguable public law error in relation to the Board’s decision.  As for the ground advanced relating to human rights, it consists of a mere general and bald assertion regarding the decision of the Director without any particulars.  It does not constitute a viable ground of appeal: see Re Salim Ahmed [2020] HKCA 244 at [20].

10.  Equally, the applicant has not been able to demonstrate any error in the decision of the Judge or advance any viable ground of appeal against the Judge’s decision.  We are not satisfied that there is any error in the Judge’s decision.

11.  Pursuant to the applicant’s request, and for these reasons, the applicant’s appeal is accordingly dismissed.