NGUYEN VAN NAM v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

CACV 653/2025, [2026] HKCA 147

On appeal from [2025] HKCFI 3448

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 653 OF 2025

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO. 1133 OF 2020)

__________________________

__________________________

________________

J U D G M E N T

________________

The Court:

Introduction

1.  This is the applicant’s appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge (Non-refoulement Claims) Val Chow (“the Judge”) given in the CALL-1 Form and the Order dated 11 August 2025[1] refusing his application for leave to apply for judicial review against the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board (the “Board”) dated 12 May 2020 (the “Board’s Decision”) whereby the Board dismissed his appeal against the decision of the Director of Immigration (the “Director”) dated 15 September 2017 (the “Director’s Decision”) and rejecting his non‑refoulement protection claim.

The applicant’s claim and the Judge’s decision

2.  The applicant is a national of Vietnam. In his non-refoulement claim form filed with the Immigration Department, his claim was put on the basis that, if refouled, he would be harmed or killed by his creditors. The applicant’s non-refoulement claim was rejected by the Director, and his appeal against it was rejected by the Board on 12 May 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 CALL-1 Form.

3.  The applicant’s application for leave to apply for judicial review was refused by the Judge and details of the Judge’s reasons for refusing to grant leave can be found in the CALL-1 Form.

The appeal

4.  By a notice of appeal filed on 27 August 2025, the applicant sought to appeal the Judge’s decision to this court and his grounds of appeal are as follows:

“1. The Director’s Decision, it was evident that the director has failed to appreciate or give the proper importance or weightage to the presence of state Acquiescence in the applicant’s case. This has indeed led to an unfair outcome of rejecting applicants non refoulement claim.

2. The Applicant submit that the Director, the Adjudicator and the Court have failed to take such argument into account or that the Director has failed to give sufficient weight to such argument before reaching the Decision.

3. The Adjudicator failed to make sufficient enquiring before finalizing the determination. The Adjudicator stated that the applicant had failed to advice any credible evidence to prove material elements of her claim.

4. Surprisingly, the director in applicant Decision while referring to relevant COI’s kept including meaning which suited the applicant pre-conceived conclusion. This was a clean case of unfair attitude shown by the Director which in itself is enough to render the applicant’s decision.

5. The grounds of this appeal are that the gravity of the applicant circumstances has noted been weighed or realized by both putative Respondents while considering the application’s non-refoulement claim. The applicant should be given an opportunity to plead her case properly.”

5.  The appeal was scheduled to be heard on 27 January 2026. The applicant has failed to lodge any skeleton argument in support of his appeal not less than 28 days before the hearing in accordance with the directions given by the Registrar of Civil Appeals. Accordingly, the applicant is deemed to have waived his right to have an oral hearing of the appeal, and elected to have the appeal disposed of on paper. The applicant was informed of the same by the court’s letter.

Our reasons for decision

6.  The Court of Appeal’s general approach in dealing with appeals in non-refoulement cases is 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 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 is a fresh application for judicial review (see Nupur Mst, at §14(6)).

7.  Further, 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 below will not intervene by way of judicial review unless there is an error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the decision of the Board: Re Kartini [2019] HKCA 1022.

8.  In the present case, no such error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the decision of the Board was observed by the Judge or was pointed out by the applicant apart from the bare assertions in his grounds of appeal, without elaboration as to how they apply to his present appeal.

9.  In our view, the matters set out in the notice of appeal failed to identify any error on the part of the Judge and do not amount to any viable grounds of appeal. The applicant’s appeal is devoid of merits. We dismiss it accordingly.