NGUYEN HA NAM v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD

CACV 1258/2025, [2026] HKCA 330

On Appeal From [2025] HKCFI 6190

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 1258 OF 2025

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 726 OF 2020)

________________________

_____________________

________________________

JUDGMENT

________________________

Hon Chow JA (giving the Judgment of the Court):

1.  This is the Applicant’s appeal against the order of Deputy High Court Judge Michael Wong (“the Judge”) dated 17 December 2025 (“the Order”) refusing to grant leave to apply for judicial review of the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office (“the Board”) dated 28 December 2018 (“the Board’s Decision”), whereby the Board dismissed the Applicant’s appeal against the decision of the Director of Immigration (“the Director”) dated 17 November 2016.

2.  The Applicant alleges that, if refouled to Vietnam, he will be harmed or killed by his creditor (Nguyen Wei Yang) because he was unable to repay a loan which he borrowed from the creditor to pay for his mother’s medical expenses.  The Applicant’s background, the basis of his claim, the findings of the Board and its reasons for dismissing his appeal against the Director’s decision have been set out in detail in the Board’s Decision, and referred to by the Judge in the Judge’s decision (see §§2, 3, 15 and 16 of the CALL-1 Form).  We do not propose to repeat them here.

3.  The Judge’s reasons for dismissing the Applicant’s leave application are set out at §§8-14 and 20-29 of the CALL-1 Form. In gist, the Judge considered that the Applicant’s delay of over 12 months in making his leave application was substantial, and he had failed to offer any explanation for the delay.  The Judge also considered the merits of the application.  He did not find any errors of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the Board’s Decision.

4.  In passing, we understand that by letter dated 23 December 2019, the Applicant made a request for making a subsequent claim for non-refoulement protection.  That request was rejected by the Director in its decision dated 23 April 2020.  The Director’s decision dated 23 April 2020 is not, however, the subject matter of the leave application below or the present appeal.

THIS APPEAL

5.  In his Notice of Appeal filed on 31 December 2025, the Applicant repeats his claimed fear of harm upon refoulement.  He states that his creditor and the followers of his creditor disregard the law and are willing to kill people to satisfy their anger and ferocity.  He disagrees with the Director’s assessment that he could move to another location in Vietnam to avoid his creditor for various reasons, and alleges that the Immigration Department did not consider his human rights under various instruments including the Basic Law and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

6.  The Applicant has failed to lodge written submissions in support of his appeal in accordance with the directions given by the Registrar of Civil Appeals on 31 December 2025.  Accordingly, he is deemed to have waived the right to have an oral hearing of his appeal and elected to have his appeal disposed of on paper.  Having considered the documents before us, we consider that it is appropriate to deal with the Applicant’s appeal on paper without an oral hearing.

DISCUSSION

7.  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)).

8.  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 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, at §13.  No such error of law or procedural unfairness or irrationality in the decision of the Board is shown in the present case.

9.  The matters raised in the Applicant’s Notice of Appeal are mostly directed at the decision of the Director, which is not reviewable because the Director’s Decision has been overtaken by the Board’s Decision.  In any event, they are all general allegations without particulars, and do not constitute any valid grounds of appeal against the Order.  

10.  The Applicant has failed to raise any viable ground of appeal against the Order. 

11.  The Applicant’s appeal has no merit, and is dismissed.