Bui Thi Thu Huyen v. Torture Claims Appeal Board

CACV 623/2025, [2026] HKCA 594

On Appeal From [2025] HKCFI 3537

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 623 OF 2025

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO. 3372 OF 2019)

____________________

____________________

________________

JUDGMENT

________________

Hon Anthony Chan JA (giving the Judgment of the Court):

1.This is the Applicant’s appeal against the order of Deputy High Court Judge Michael Wong (“Judge”) dated 12 August 2025 by which her application for leave to apply for judicial review (“Leave Application”) against the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board (“Board”) dated 7 November 2019 (“Board’s Decision”) was dismissed. By that decision, the Board upheld the decision of the Director of Immigration (“Director”) rejecting the Applicant’s non-refoulement claim.

2.The Applicant is a national of Vietnam.  The basis of her non-refoulement claim had been set out in detail in the Board’s Decision, which may be viewed online via the hyperlink contained in [1] of the CALL-1 Form.  In gist, the Applicant claims that if she returns home, she will be killed or harmed by her creditor.

3.In [12] to [25] of the CALL-1 Form, the Judge gave detailed reasons for refusing the Leave Application.

4.By a Notice of Appeal filed on 19 August 2025, the Applicant appeals against the Judge’s decision.  In summary, the Applicant contends that:

(1)     It is unsafe for the Applicant to return to Vietnam;

(2)     The Director’s suggestion of internal relocation by her is completely unfeasible; and

(3)     The Immigration Department did not consider her human rights.

5.This appeal was scheduled to be heard on 26 March 2026. The Applicant has failed to lodge any skeleton argument in support of her appeal in accordance with the directions given by the Registrar of Civil Appeals on 11 February 2026.  Accordingly, the Applicant is deemed to have waived her right to have an oral hearing of the appeal and elected to have the appeal disposed of on paper.  Having considered the documents before us, we consider that it is appropriate to deal with the Applicant’s appeal on paper without an oral hearing.

6.The general approach of this Court in dealing with appeals in non-refoulement cases has been set out in Nupur Mst v Director of Immigration [2018] HKCA 524 at [14].  In particular, in an appeal against refusal of leave to apply for judicial review in non-refoulement cases, this Court 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.  This Court’s role is not to examine the Board’s decision afresh as if it is a fresh application for judicial review (see Nupur Mst at [14(6)]).

7.Further, 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 is an error of law or procedural unfairness or irrationality in the decision of the Board: Re Kartini [2019] HKCA 1022 at [13].

8.The grounds advanced in the Notice of Appeal are not related to any error on the part of the Judge and are therefore not viable grounds of appeal.

9.In the premises, this appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs.

The Applicant acting in person