VO MANH HUNG v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD

CACV 1063/2025, [2026] HKCA 1219

On Appeal From [2025] HKCFI 5439

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 1063 OF 2025

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO. 419 OF 2021)

____________________

BETWEEN

____________________

________________

J U D G M E N T

________________

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

Introduction

1.  This is the Applicant’s appeal against the order of Deputy High Court Judge Bruno Chan (“Judge”) dated 17 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 11 March 2021 (“Board’s Decision”), which confirmed the decision of the Director of Immigration (“Director”) dated 16 September 2020 rejecting the Applicant’s non-refoulement claims.

Background

2.  The Applicant is a national of Vietnam. On 23 April 2020, the Applicant and his girlfriend jointly lodged a non-refoulement claim on the basis that, if refouled, they would be harmed or killed by their respective creditors over their unpaid debts. Their claim was rejected by the Director on 16 September 2020, and their appeal against the Director’s decision was rejected by the Board on 11 March 2021. By himself, the Applicant applied for leave to apply for judicial review of the Board’s Decision. 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 17 November 2025.[1] 

3.  The Applicant’s leave application was refused by the Judge on 17 November 2025. Details of the Judge’s reasons for refusing to grant leave can be found in the Form CALL-1.

Grounds of Appeal

4.  In the Notice of Appeal filed on 20 November 2025, the Applicant stated the following :

“The Judge was wrong to refuse leave as my case has arguable grounds and the TCAB make errors in assessing my risk”

5.  In his written submissions filed on 20 November 2025, the Applicant argues that the Judge had committed the following errors :

(1)  The Applicant did not have access to legal representation, and the Judge should have considered the substance of his complaint instead of the absence of “legal drafting” (we understand that to be a reference to the Judge’s observation that no ground for seeking relief was advanced in the Applicant’s Form 86 or his supporting affirmation[2]).

(2)  The Judge failed to address arguable errors made by the Board.

(3)  The Board decided his appeal without an oral hearing despite the presence of disputed factual issues, and this is an arguable breach of procedural fairness which is sufficient on its own to justify leave to apply for judicial review.

(4)  The Judge failed to consider whether the standard of “anxious scrutiny” was correctly applied by the Director or the Board in assessing his claim.

Legal Principles

6.  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)).

7.  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

8.  In respect of any complaint about the lack of legal or language assistance, this Court has repeatedly stated that as a matter of law, it is not the case that a non-refoulement claimant is entitled to free legal representation at all stages of the process, and that the high standard of fairness required by law does not entail an interpretation service being made available to an applicant at all times as he desires: Re Zunariyah [2018] HKCA 14 at [18]; Re Zahid Abbas [2018] HKCA 15 at [11] and Re Tariq Farhan [2018] HKCA 17 at [11].

9.  It was not the case that the Judge had ignored the substance of the Applicant’s claim. The Judge observed that both the Director and the Board took the view that the risk of harm to the Applicant, if real, was a localized one and it was not unreasonable or unsafe for him to relocate to other part of Vietnam. The Judge was unable to find any error of law or procedural unfairness or failure to apply high standard of fairness in the decisions of Director or the Board.

10.  The Board was entitled to determine an appeal without a hearing pursuant to the Immigration Ordinance, Cap 115, Schedule 1A, para 12. The Board’s reasons for not holding an oral hearing were set out in the Board’s Decision, [18] to [23]. The existence or otherwise of factual dispute did not escape the Board’s consideration.

11.  All other matters raised in the Notice of Appeal and written submissions are general allegations without particulars. None of the matters or arguments advanced by the Applicant constitutes any valid grounds of appeal against the Judge’s decision.

12.  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.

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