VU QUOC TUNG v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

CACV 483/2025, [2026] HKCA 110

On Appeal From [2025] HKCFI 2902

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 483 OF 2025

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 365 OF 2020)

________________________

BETWEEN

_____________________

_____________________

JUDGMENT

_____________________

The Court:

INTRODUCTION

1.  This is the Applicant’s appeal against the order of DHCJ Reuden Lai (“the Judge”) dated 7 July 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 15 January 2020 (“the Board’s Decision”).

BACKGROUND

2.  The Applicant is a national of Vietnam. On 1 August 2014, the Applicant lodged a non-refoulement claim. His claim is put on the basis that, if refouled, he would be harmed or killed by his creditor and police. The Applicant’s non-refoulement claim was rejected by the Director of Immigration (“the Director”) on 14 January 2019, and the appeal against the Director’s decision was rejected by the Board on 15 January 2020. 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 CALL-1 Form dated 7 July 2025.

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

GROUNDS OF APPEAL

4.  In the Notice of Appeal filed on 11 July 2025, the Applicant essentially argues that he would be tortured, beaten or even killed by his creditor and gangsters if he returned, that the Director failed to properly assess the viability of his internal relocation, and that the Director failed to consider his human rights.

5.  In the skeleton arguments filed on 12 December 2025, the Applicant argues that:

(1) The Board took irrelevant matter into consideration and failed to take relevant matters into consideration.

(2) The Board failed to apply a high standard of fairness.

(3) The Board failed to exercise independent assessment.

(4) The Board’s decision was irrational.

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 Board and the Director. The court below 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 & DISPOSITION

8.  The matters raised in the Applicant’s Notice of Appeal are all bare allegations without particulars whereas the grounds raised in the skeleton arguments are directed at the Board. They do not relate to the Judge’s reasons for refusing to grant leave to the Applicant to apply for judicial review and do not constitute any valid grounds of appeal against the Judge’s decision. Furthermore, general assertions of fear if refouled do not constitute proper grounds of appeal: Re Saldua Dorothy Trifalgar [2022] HKCA 627 at [6].

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.