RE NGUYEN THI THANH HUYEN

CACV 654/2026, [2026] HKCA 1420

On appeal from [2026] HKCFI 2985

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 654 OF 2026

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL 1525/2025)

-----------------------------------

-----------------------------------

___________________

J U D G M E N T

___________________

Hon Leung J (giving the Judgment of the Court):

1.  This is an appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge KW Lung (“the Judge”) given on 10 June 2026[1] (“the Leave Decision”) refusing to grant leave for the applicant to apply for judicial review.  The intended judicial review was against the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board/adjudicator of the Non-Refoulement Claims Petition Office (“the Board”) dated 30 May 2025 (“the Board’s Decision”) whereby the applicant’s appeal against the decision of the Director of Immigration dated 12 February 2025 rejecting the applicant’s non-refoulement claim was dismissed.

2.  The applicant is a Vietnamese national.  Her background, basis of claim and the Board’s reasons have been set out in the Board’s Decision[2] as well as the Leave Decision at [9]-[11].  They will not be repeated. 

3.  The applicant did not request for an oral hearing.  After considering the documents filed by the applicant for the leave application, the Judge dismissed the application for the reasons stated at [14]-[19] of the Leave Decision. 

Appeal to this court

4.  In her Notice of Appeal dated 17 June 2026, the applicant stated among other things that she disagreed with the Leave Decision, and that her claim was not scrutinised “properly” by the Court.  She further claims that she would be killed by her enemies if she is refouled.  

5.  In her written submission dated 2 July 2026, the applicant raised several complaints against the Judge, including, among other things, that he erred in law by not having analysed her claim properly, and “not having applied the principle of irrationality” and “the principle of procedural unfairness” in his consideration of the Board’s Decision.  She repeated that she would face hardship, including death consequence, upon refoulement, as her enemies “are very dangerous”.

6.  The applicant was absent from the hearing of the appeal on 6 August 2026.  We will therefore determine the appeal on paper and on the basis of the matters set out in the documents lodged with the Court.

Discussion

7.  The 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.  Assertions by the applicant of fear, if refouled, do not constitute proper grounds of appeal: Re Saldua Dorothy Trifalgar [2022] HKCA 627 at [6].

8.  The Court’s role is not to examine the decision maker’s decision afresh as if it were a fresh application for judicial review.  Nor is an appeal the occasion for regurgitating arguments advanced and rejected by the judge or for running arguments which could and should have been raised but were not raised before the judge.  In the determination of an appeal, the Court of Appeal focuses on the decision of the judge, and the Court will only reverse that decision if an appellant could demonstrate that the judge made errors of law or failed to take account of relevant matters already placed before the judge or was otherwise plainly wrong: Re Kartini [2019] HKCA 1022 at [13].

9.  The applicant has failed to identify any error on the part of the Judge and thus failed to raise any viable ground of appeal.  The points advanced by the applicant were bare assertions.

10.  In the present case, the Board specifically rejected the claim of the applicant that she had borrowed money from a moneylender in its entirety.  Nor was she able to establish on the evidence before the Board the alleged risks of harm from her creditor by reason of her failure to repay a loan.  In any event, the Board took the view that suitable options of internal relocation were available to the applicant in order to minimise such risks of harm, if any.  These were factual findings open to the Board on the evidence, and were sufficiently canvassed and considered by the Judge in the Leave Decision at [9]-[19].  We see no basis to interfere.

11.  The applicant has failed to demonstrate how the Board had acted unlawfully or procedurally unfairly in reaching its decision, or how such decision could be said to be Wednesbury unreasonable.

12.  As the applicant advanced no viable grounds of appeal against the Judge’s decision, and there is no merit in the appeal, we dismiss the appeal accordingly.