Re Nguyen Ngoc an

CACV 82/2025, [2026] HKCA 470

On Appeal From [2025] HKCFI 254

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 82 OF 2025

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO. 2357 OF 2019)

________________________

________________________

________________________

J U D G M E N T

________________________

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

1.This is the applicant’s appeal against the order of Deputy High Court Judge KW Lung dated 6 February 2025 ([2025] HKCFI 254)  (‘the Leave Decision’)  refusing his application for leave to apply for judicial review (‘the Leave Application’)  against the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office (‘the Board’)  dated 9 August 2019 (‘the Board’s Decision’), whereby the Board dismissed his appeal against the decision of the Director of Immigration (‘the Director’)  dated 25 October 2017, refusing his non-refoulement claim.

2.The applicant did not request an oral hearing and consented to the appeal being disposed of on paper by the Court[1].  We will accordingly deal with the appeal on paper on the basis of the materials already filed with the Court.

3.The applicant’s background, the basis of his claim and arguments advanced before the Board as well as the Board’s reasons for rejecting his appeal are all set out in the Board’s Decision: see [4]-[8], [11]-[15] of the Leave Decision[2]. 

4.The applicant last entered Hong Kong illegally in July 2015 and surrendered to the Immigration Department.  He was arrested in November 2015 and was sentenced to imprisonment for using forged identity card and taking up employment without the Director’s authority.  The applicant made a non-refoulement claim on 8, 11 and 26 August 2016.  The basis of his claim is that if he returned to Vietnam, he would be harmed or killed by his creditor because he failed to repay the loan owed to him[3].

5.The Judge sets out his reasons for refusing the Leave Application: see [16]-[24] of the Leave Decision.  We will not repeat the details herein.

6.By the Notice of Appeal filed on 2 January 2026, the applicant stated the following in summary :

1)  The Court refused the applicant’s application for leave to apply for judicial review;

2)  The applicant will risk being killed if he returns to Vietnam because the creditors there are cruel and violent;

3)  Internal relocation is not feasible, there is no guarantee that he can adapt to the new place;

4)  It is quite possible for the creditor to find out where he lives;

5)  The Immigration Department did not consider his human rights;

6)  The applicant seeks asylum in Hong Kong; and

7)   The applicant’s appeal is important.

7.In his supporting affirmation, the applicant stated the following in summary :

1)  A good ground of appeal was not considered at the leave stage of applying for judicial review;

2)  The Director and the Board ‘did not see grounds to reserve their decision’; and

3)  The applicant requests the Court to exercise its discretion to allow the appeal.

8.None of these bare assertions in the applicant’s documents relate to any complaint against the Judge.

I.  Discussion

9.The relevant legal principles governing appeals in non-refoulement cases are set out in Nupur Mst v Director of Immigration [2018] HKCA 524 at [14].

10.In particular, in an appeal against refusal of leave to apply for judicial review in non-refoulement cases, 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.  The Court’s role is not to examine the decision maker’s decision afresh as if it were a fresh application for judicial review.  See Nupur Mst v Director of Immigration [2018] HKCA 524 at [14(6)].

11.In light of the above, it is thus incumbent on the applicant to point out the errors in the Leave Decision with sufficient particulars and specifics.

12.However, nowhere in his Notice of Appeal nor affirmation did the applicant identify any error committed by the Judge with specific particulars.  His assertions are all general, bare and vague allegations unsupported by specific particulars or evidence.  General assertions of his fear if refouled do not constitute proper grounds of appeal: Re Saldua Dorothy Trifalgar [2022] HKCA 627 at [6]. The Court will not usurp the role of the Board.  Assessment of evidence, country of origin information materials, 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.  No such error was demonstrated by the applicant. Clearly, his assertions do not constitute viable grounds of appeal and lack substance.  We see no basis to interfere with the Leave Decision.

13.For the above reasons, the applicant’s appeal against the Leave Decision has no merit and is dismissed.

Applicant, acting in person