BUI VAN THANG v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD

CACV 1018/2025, [2026] HKCA 1077

On Appeal From [2025] HKCFI 5205

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 1018 OF 2025

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO. 420 OF 2021)

____________________

BETWEEN

____________________

Before:  Hon Au and Anthony Chan JJA in Court 

Date of Written Submissions:  13 November 2025

Date of Judgment:  4 August 2026

________________

JUDGMENT

________________

Hon Anthony Chan JA (giving the Judgment of the Court) :

Introduction

This is the Applicant’s appeal against the order of Deputy High Court Judge Bruno Chan (“Judge”) dated 7 November 2025 (“Order”) refusing to grant leave to apply for judicial review of the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office (“Board”) dated 16 March 2021 (“Board’s Decision”), which confirmed the decision of the Director of Immigration (“Director”) dated 10 July 2020 rejecting the Applicant’s non-refoulement claims.

Background

The Applicant is a national of Vietnam. On 23 November 2019, the Applicant lodged a non-refoulement claim on the basis that, if refouled, he would be harmed or killed by his creditor over outstanding debts.  The Applicant’s claim was rejected by the Director on 10 July 2020, and his appeal against the Director’s decision was rejected by the Board on 16 March 2021.  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 Form CALL- 1 dated 7 November 2025.  

The Applicant’s application for leave to apply for judicial review was refused by the Judge on 7 November 2025.  Details of the Judge’s reasons for refusing to grant leave can be found in the Form CALL- 1.

Grounds of Appeal

In the Notice of Appeal filed on 13 November 2025, the Applicant stated the following :

“The grounds of this appeal are that the learned Judge erred in law and in fact, failed to consider relevant evidence and procedural unfairness, and the decision was unreasonable and disproportionate.” 

In the 3-page written submissions filed on the same day, apart from reiterating his non-refoulement claim, the Applicant argues the following :

(1)	The Director and the Board failed to properly consider the real risk of serious harm to him from his enemy.

(2)	The Director and the Board misapplied the principle of internal relocation.

(3)	The Board’s findings on the inconsistencies in the Applicant’s testimony are not justified.

(4)	The Board’s dismissal of the Applicant’s claims on the basis of his credibility is without sufficient reason or evidence. 

The Applicant has elected to have his appeal dealt with on paper without an oral hearing.  Having considered the documents before us, we consider that it is appropriate to deal with this appeal accordingly.

Legal Principles

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 was a fresh application for judicial review: see Nupur Mst v Director of Immigration [2018] HKCA 524, at §14(6)).

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 Director and the Board.  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: Re Kartini [2019] HKCA 1022.  

Discussion and Disposition 

All the matters raised in the Notice of Appeal and written submissions are general allegations without particulars.  They do not constitute any valid grounds of appeal against the Order.

The Applicant has failed to identify or show any error in the Judge’s decision refusing to grant leave to apply for judicial review, or raise any viable ground of appeal against the Order.  

The Applicant’s appeal has no merit, and is dismissed with no order as to costs.

The Applicant acting in person