VU CONG DIEP v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

CACV 1172/2025, [2026] HKCA 103

On Appeal From [2025] HKCFI 5925

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 1172 OF 2025

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 480 OF 2021)

________________________

_____________________

_______________

J U D G M E N T

_______________

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

1.  This is the Applicant’s appeal against the order of Deputy High Court Judge To (“the Judge”) dated 5 December 2025 (“the Order”) refusing to grant leave to the Applicant to apply for judicial review of the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office (“the Board”) dated 21 January 2021 (“the Board’s Decision”), whereby the Board dismissed the Applicant’s appeal against the decision of the Director of Immigration (“the Director”) dated 23 September 2020 refusing his non-refoulement claim.

2.  The Applicant alleges that, if refouled to Vietnam, he will be harmed or killed by a moneylender for being unable to repay a loan. 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 the Board’s Decision, and summarised by the Judge in the Judge’s decision (see §§2-5 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 §7 of the CALL-1 Form. In gist, the Judge found that the Applicant failed to advance any or any proper grounds of intended challenge against the Board’s Decision. The Judge also considered that there was no error of law, Wednesbury unreasonableness or irrationality in the Board’s Decision, nor any procedural unfairness in reaching the Board’s Decision.

THIS APPEAL

4.  In his Notice of Appeal filed on 11 December 2025, the Applicant states that he wants to appeal the Judge’s decision which he contends is unreasonable. The Applicant has not given any particulars in support of his contention.

5.  In his written submissions lodged on 12 January 2026, the Applicant repeats his claimed fear of harm from the moneylender in his home country.

6.  At the hearing of the appeal, the Applicant had nothing to add to his written submissions.

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 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.

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

11.  This judgment is written in English although the hearing of the appeal was conducted in Chinese with the assistance of a Vietnamese interpreter, because the Judge’s decision, the Notice of Appeal and the Applicant’s written submissions, are all written in English. If required, the Applicant may make an appointment with the clerk to this Court for an oral interpretation of this judgment in the Applicant’s preferred language at a mutually convenient time in the Court’s premises.