Do Van Chinh v. Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office

CACV 427/2025, [2026] HKCA 805

On Appeal From [2025] HKCFI 2166

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 427 OF 2025

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 2901 OF 2019)

________________________

BETWEEN

_____________________

_____________________

JUDGMENT

_____________________

The Court:

INTRODUCTION

1.This is the Applicant’s appeal against the order of Deputy High Court Judge K W Lung (“the Judge”) dated 10 June 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 13 September 2019 (“the Board’s Decision”).

BACKGROUND

2.The Applicant is a national of Vietnam. On 20 February 2017, the Applicant lodged a non-refoulement claim on the basis that, if refouled, he would be harmed or killed by the creditor because of his inability to repay a debt. The Applicant’s non-refoulement claim was rejected by the Director of Immigration (“the Director”) on 24 May 2017, and the appeal against the Director’s decision was rejected by the Board on 13 September 2019. Details of the Applicant’s claim and the Board’s reasons for rejecting the Applicant’s appeal can be found in the Judge’s judgment dated 10 June 2025.

3.The Applicant’s application for leave to apply for judicial review was refused by the Judge on 10 June 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 23 June 2025 the Applicant essentially argues that he would be beaten or even killed by his creditors and gangsters if he returned, that the Director failed to appreciate or properly assess the viability of his internal relocation, and that the Director failed to consider his human rights. In the supporting affirmation, the Applicant states that there was a good ground of appeal that was not necessarily considered in the application for judicial review and that the Director and the Board “did not see the grounds to reserve their decisions”.

5.The Applicant has failed to lodge written submissions in support of the appeal in accordance with the directions given by the Registrar of Civil Appeals on 16 January 2026.[1] Accordingly, the Applicant is deemed to have waived the 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.

DISCUSSION & DISPOSITION

6.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)).

7.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.

8.The matters raised in the Applicant’s Notice of Appeal and supporting affirmation are all general allegations without particulars. They do not constitute any valid grounds of appeal against the Judge’s decision. The Applicant’s appeal has no merit, and is dismissed.

The Applicant, unrepresented, acted in person