RE NGUYEN THI MY

CACV 1194/2025, [2026] HKCA 137

On Appeal From [2025] HKCFI 5785

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 1194 OF 2025

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 1155 OF 2025)

_______________

_______________

_______________

J U D G M E N T

_______________

Hon Leung J (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 5785) (“the Leave Decision”) refusing her 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 28 April 2025 (“the Board’s Decision”). By the Board’s Decision, her appeal against the decision of the Director of Immigration (“the Director”) dated 24 December 2024, which refused her non-refoulement claim, was dismissed.

2.  The applicant is a national of Vietnam. Her personal background, the basis of her claim and her arguments advanced before the Board as well as the Board’s reasons for rejecting her appeal were set out in the Board’s Decision: see [4] – [11] of the Leave Decision[1]. The Judge also set out the grounds advanced by the applicant in support of the Leave Application and his reasons for refusing the Leave Application: see [12] - [19] of the Leave Decision. We will not repeat the details herein.

3.  By the Notice of Appeal filed on 16 December 2025, the applicant essentially reiterates that, upon refoulement, she fears that she would be harmed or even killed by her creditor, and that she considered it infeasible to be internally relocated within her country as she would face difficulties and obstacles in terms of adaptation and employment opportunity in the new location. She also alleges that the Director failed to consider her human rights under various international covenants and legislations, but without specifying the provisions.

4.  The appeal was listed to be heard on 2 February 2026. By the directions made by the Registrar of Civil Appeals on 16 December 2025, which were received by the applicant on the same day, she was directed to lodge two sets of skeleton argument on or before 19 January 2026, failing which, she would be deemed to have waived her right to have an oral hearing for the appeal and the hearing date would be vacated with the appeal being determined on paper.

5.  The applicant did not lodge any skeleton argument in support of her appeal. Accordingly, she was deemed to have waived her right to have an oral hearing and elected to have her appeal disposed of on paper. The hearing date was thus vacated on 20 January 2026.

6.  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]. 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.

7.  Whilst she stated her complaint against the Director and the Board in her Notice of Appeal, the applicant did not identify and particularise any error committed by the Judge in the Leave Decision which could give rise to any ground of appeal. Bare and general assertions of her fear upon refoulement do not constitute proper grounds of appeal: Re Saldua Dorothy Trifalgar [2022] HKCA 627 at [6]. In the absence of viable grounds of appeal, her appeal must fail.

8.  In any event, as explained by the Judge at [16] of the Leave Decision, the Court will not interfere the findings of fact made by the Board, as they are primarily 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]. In our judgment, the Judge was clearly entitled to find that her challenges against the Board’s Decision to be invalid: see [18] of the Leave Decision. We see no basis to interfere with the Leave Decision.

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