Truong Thi Hue v. Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office

CACV 144/2026, [2026] HKCA 815

On Appeal From [2026] HKCFI 980

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 144 OF 2026

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 1352 OF 2025)

________________________

________________________

________________

J U D G M E N T

________________

Hon Lisa Wong J (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 13 February 2026 refusing to grant the applicant, a national of Vietnam, leave to apply for judicial review (“Judge’s Decision”). The intended judicial review sought to quash the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board / adjudicator of the Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office (“Board”) dated 2 June 2025 (“Board’s Decision”), which upheld the decision of the Director of Immigration (“Director”) dated 28 February 2025 rejecting the applicant’s non-refoulement claim.

2.The applicant’s claim was made on the basis of a fear of being harmed or killed by her creditor, upon refoulement to Vietnam, due to her inability to repay a loan. Details of the applicant’s background, the circumstances giving rise to her said alleged fear, the arguments advanced by her before the Board and the Board’s reasons for rejecting her appeal are all set out in the Board’s Decision[1]. For the grounds advanced by the applicant in support of her application for leave and the Judge’s reasons for refusing the application, see [13] – [18] of the Form CALL-1.

Appeal to this Court

3.By the notice of appeal filed herein on 23 February 2026, the applicant appealed against the Judge’s Decision, essentially on the grounds that she would be beaten or even killed by her creditor if she returned to Vietnam; that internal relocation would be infeasible for her; and that the Director failed to consider her human rights.

4.The applicant’s written submission dated 3 March 2026 argued that the Board considered irrelevant matters which downplayed the applicant’s risk of harm; that the Board failed to invite further submissions from the applicant on matters that required clarification; that the Board relied on country of origin information (“COI”) without critical assessment of its credibility; that the Board acted irrationally by finding that the applicant’s case did not meet the minimum level of severity; and that the Board failed to consider relevant matters in finding that internal relocation would be viable for the applicant.

5.At the hearing before us, the applicant merely stated that she wishes to stay in Hong Kong.

Legal Principles

6.We refer to 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] for the principles governing the Court of First Instance’s role in judicial review in non-refoulement claims and the Court of Appeal’s approach in an appeal against refusal of leave for judicial review in non-refoulement claims.

7.First, the primary decision-makers in a non-refoulement claim are the Director and the Board. They alone assess the evidence and find relevant facts. An application for leave for judicial review does not provide a further avenue of appeal. The court will not re-assess the non-refoulement claim. It will intervene by way of judicial review only for errors of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality.

8.Second, an appeal against a refusal of leave to apply for judicial review is not the occasion for the Court of Appeal to examine the decision of the Board afresh as if the appeal were a fresh application for judicial review. This court is concerned with the decision of the judge at first instance, which it will consider in light of the grounds of appeal raised by the applicant. The Court of Appeal shall interfere only if the judge had erred in law, failed to take into account a relevant matter or was otherwise plainly wrong. If no such error is shown, the appeal should be dismissed.

Discussion

9.In the present case, the Board found no real risk of harm to the applicant upon refoulement because the applicant’s claim of having borrowed money was not at all credible. In any event, (1) the dispute between the applicant and her creditor was a private matter without any state involvement, (2) reasonable state protection would be available, and (3) relocation to Da Nang and Can Tho would be viable for the applicant having regard to her education level and work experience. These are findings of fact open to the Board on the evidence it received and for the reasons it gave.

10.Contrary to the applicant’s submissions, the Board had, as recorded in the Board’s Decision, sought clarification from the applicant on a number of matters, including the COI (in the form of news articles) cited by the Board. The applicant did not appear to challenge the authenticity or credibility of the news articles. Her only comment was that such COI would not assist her case.

11.The applicant has failed to show any reasonably arguable public law error in the Board’s Decision.

12.As for the allegation that the Director has overlooked the applicant’s human rights, it consists of a mere general and bald assertion without any particulars, which does not constitute a viable ground of appeal: see Re Salim Ahmed [2020] HKCA 244 at [20].

13.Equally, the applicant has not demonstrated any error in the Judge’s Decision. We are not satisfied that there is any error in the Judge’s Decision.

14.The applicant’s appeal is accordingly dismissed.

The applicant, unrepresented, appeared in person