Hoang Van Binh v. Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office

CACV 1081/2025, [2026] HKCA 616

On Appeal From [2025] HKCFI 5375

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 1081 OF 2025

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 1132 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 11 November 2025 refusing to grant leave to the applicant to apply for judicial review against the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board/adjudicator of the Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office (“Board”) dated 2 May 2025. In that decision, the Board upheld the decision of the Director of Immigration (“Director”) dated 13 January 2025 rejecting the applicant’s non-refoulement claim.

Background

2.The applicant is a national of Vietnam born in 1978 and his claim was made on the basis that if he returned to Vietnam, his creditor 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 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 [5] of the Form CALL-1. The Judge has set out the grounds advanced by the applicant in support of the application and his reasons for refusal of the application: see [12] – [17] of the Form CALL-1.

Appeal to this Court

3.On 25 November 2025, the applicant filed his Notice of Appeal against the Judge’s decision. His stated grounds of appeal were, essentially, that he would be beaten or even killed by his creditor if he returned, that the Director failed to properly assess the infeasibility of the applicant’s internal relocation within Vietnam, and that the Director failed to consider his human rights. In his accompanying affirmation, the applicant stated that there was a good ground of appeal that was not necessarily considered in the court below, without providing any particulars.

4.The applicant has given consent in writing for this appeal to be disposed of on paper without an oral hearing.

5.On 8 January 2026, the applicant filed a Request for Dismissal of Appeal.

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 the Board was not satisfied that the applicant was a credible or truthful witness. Even if his claim was accepted in full, the Board found that the risk of harm was localized and that internal relocation to Ho Chi Minh City and Da Nang were viable options to 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. As for the ground advanced relating to human rights, it consists of mere general and bald assertions regarding the decision of the Director without any particulars. It does not constitute a viable ground of appeal: see Re Salim Ahmed [2020] HKCA 244 at [20].

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.

The Applicant, unrepresented, acting in person