Tran Van Cuong v. Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office

CACV 171/2025, [2026] HKCA 548

On Appeal From [2025] HKCFI 865

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 171 OF 2025

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 2633 OF 2019)

________________________

_____________________

_______________

J U D G M E N T

_______________

The Court:

INTRODUCTION

1.This is the Applicant’s appeal against the order of Deputy High Court Judge KW Lung (“the Judge”) dated 1 April 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 6 September 2019 (“the Board’s Decision”).

BACKGROUND

2.The Applicant is a national of Vietnam. On 23 February 2016, the Applicant lodged a non-refoulement claim on the basis that, if refouled, he would be harmed or killed by his creditor because of his inability to repay a debt of VND 1 billion.[1]  The Applicant’s claim was rejected by the Director of Immigration (“the Director”) on 11 April 2017, and the appeal against the Director’s decision was rejected by the Board on 6 September 2019. Details of the Applicant’s claim and the Board’s reasons for rejecting the Applicant’s appeal can be found in the judgment dated 1 April 2025 (“the Judgment”).  

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

GROUNDS OF APPEAL

4.In the Notice of Appeal filed on 3 April 2025, the Applicant states the following that:

“The Judgement is unreasonable. I don’t agree with the decision. I would appeal against the decision with more information to prove my case is real.” (sic)

5.In the 2-page written submissions filed on 27 January 2026, apart from reiterating his non-refoulement claim, the Applicant argues that the Board dismissed his appeal without any explanation, and that he does not think the Director and the Board understand his situation.

6.At the hearing on 13 March 2026, the Applicant had nothing to add.

DISCUSSION & DISPOSITION

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.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.

9.The matters raised in the Applicant’s Notice of Appeal and written submissions are mainly directed at the Director and the Board, and they are all general allegations without particulars. They do not constitute any valid grounds of appeal against the Judge’s decision.

10.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.

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

The Applicant appeared in person