NGO VAN TAI v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

CACV 996/2025, [2026] HKCA 200

On Appeal From [2025] HKCFI 4740

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 996 OF 2025

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 1048 OF 2025)

________________________

________________________

________________________

J U D G M E N T

________________________

Hon G Lam JA (giving the Judgment of the Court):

Introduction

1.  This is an appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge K. W. Lung (“Judge”)  on 30 October 2025 refusing the applicant leave to apply for judicial review against the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board/adjudicator of the Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office (“Board”)  dated 24 April 2025.  In that decision, the Board upheld the decision of the Director of Immigration (“Director”)  dated 15 January 2025 rejecting the applicant’s non-refoulement claim.

Background

2.  The applicant is a national of Vietnam born in 1993 and his claim was made on the basis that if he returned to Vietnam, his creditor (Nguyen Van Hung)  would harm or kill him due to his inability to repay a loan.  Details of the applicant’s background, the basis of his claim and the arguments advanced before the Board as well as the Board’s reasons for rejecting his appeal have all been set out in the Board’s decision: see [6] of the Form CALL-1.  The Judge has set out the grounds advanced by the applicant in support of the application for leave to apply for judicial review and his reasons for refusing leave: see [13] – [18] of the Form CALL-1.  We shall not repeat them here.

Appeal to this Court

3.  On 11 November 2025, the applicant filed his Notice of Appeal against the Judge’s decision.  His stated grounds of appeal were, essentially, that the creditor would kill or harm him due to the unpaid debt, that the Director’s suggestion of internal relocation was not feasible, and that the Director did not consider his human rights. 

4.  The applicant has lodged written submissions in which he stated that the Board took into account the irrelevant matter that the creditors only wanted repayment without considering the relevant matter that he had suffered injuries from his creditor before.  He submitted that, in light of the high standards of fairness, the Board should have actively questioned the applicant further about his creditor before concluding that his creditor had no connection with the state.  He also submitted that the Board did not critically assess the country of origin information it relied on; that the Board was irrational in finding that the applicant’s claim did not meet the minimum level of severity; and that the Board failed to take relevant matters into consideration when finding internal relocation was viable.

5.  However, on 13 January 2026, the applicant filed a Request for Dismissal of Appeal.  As the applicant is requesting for his appeal to be dismissed, the scheduled hearing of his appeal was vacated pursuant to the directions of the Court.  We shall accordingly determine the appeal on the basis of the available documents and materials.

Discussion

6.  Although the applicant has made a written request for the dismissal of his appeal, we shall nevertheless briefly discuss the merits of his appeal.

7.  In assessing the merits of the appeal, we shall have regard to the legal principles which this Court has adopted in dealing with appeals in non-refoulement cases: see Nupur Mst v Director of Immigration [2018] HKCA 524 at [14]; Re Md Shohel Sheak [2018] HKCA 714 at [13]; and Re Limbu Birkhaman [2019] HKCA 50 at [11].  In particular, the role of the Court in a judicial review is not to provide a further avenue of appeal.  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.  In the determination of an appeal against the refusal of leave by the Court of First Instance, the Court of Appeal will 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.  It is not the role of this Court to examine the decision of the Board afresh as if the appeal were a fresh application for judicial review.

8.  In the present case, the Board found that there was no real risk of harm upon refoulement as alleged, because it was a private dispute, the minimum level of severity was not reached, he was not a target of the state, state protection would be available, and internal relocation to Ho Chi Minh City or Hanoi would be a viable option for the applicant.  These are findings of fact open to the Board based on the evidence it received and for the reasons it gave. The applicant has failed to show any reasonably arguable public law error in relation to the Board’s decision.

9.  Equally, the applicant has not been able to demonstrate any error in the decision of the Judge or advance any viable ground of appeal against the Judge’s decision.  We are not satisfied that there is any error in the Judge’s decision.

10.  The applicant’s appeal is accordingly dismissed.