Truong Tuan Anh v. Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office

CACV 932/2025, [2026] HKCA 758

On appeal from [2025] HKCFI 4881

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 932 OF 2025

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO. 2339 OF 2020)

________________________

BETWEEN

________________________

________________________

J U D G M E N T

________________________

Hon Ng J (giving the Judgment of the Court):

INTRODUCTION

1.This is the applicant’s appeal against the order of Deputy High Court Judge Bruno Chan (“the Judge”)  dated 16 October 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 12 November 2020 (“the Board’s Decision”)  whereby the Board dismissed his appeal against the decision of the Director of Immigration (“the Director”)  dated 17 July 2020 (“the Director’s Decision”).

BACKGROUND

2.The applicant is a national of Vietnam. He lodged a non-refoulement claim with the Immigration Department on the basis that, if refouled, he would be harmed or killed by his creditor over his unpaid debts.  The applicant’s non-refoulement claim was rejected by the Director, and his appeal against it was rejected by the Board.  Details of the applicant’s claim and the Board’s reasons for rejecting the applicant’s appeal can be found in the Board’s Decision.   

3.The applicant’s application for leave to apply for judicial review was refused by the Judge and details of the Judge’s reasons for refusing to grant leave can be found in the Form CALL-1.

GROUNDS OF APPEAL

4.By a notice of appeal filed on 27 October 2025, the applicant sought to appeal the Judge’s decision to this court.  The applicant’s grounds of appeal can be summarised as follows:

(1)  The applicant will face the risk of being harmed or killed by his creditor if he is returned to Vietnam;

(2)  Internal relocation as suggested by the Director is not feasible;

(3)  The Director did not consider his human rights under the “Basic Law, Hong Kong Human Rights and Democracy Act, International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights”.

5.In the applicant’s skeleton arguments lodged on 17 March 2026, apart from reiterating his claim, he also argued the following:

(1)  the Board took irrelevant matters into consideration and failed to take relevant matters into consideration;

(2)  the Board failed to apply a high standard of fairness;

(3)  the Board failed to exercise independent assessment;

(4)  the Board’s decision was irrational.

6.However, the applicant did not identify any error made by the Judge in dismissing his application for leave to take out a judicial review.

7.The appeal was heard on 16 April 2026.  The applicant attended the hearing in person with the assistance of a Vietnamese interpreter.  The applicant simply added that he could not return to Vietnam at the moment.

LEGAL PRINCIPLES

8.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)).

9.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 below will not intervene by way of judicial review unless there are errors of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the decision of the Board: Re Kartini [2019] HKCA 1022.

DISCUSSION & DISPOSITION

10.In the present case, no error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the decision of the Board was detected by the Judge or was pointed out by the applicant apart from the bare assertions as stated in his grounds of appeal and his skeleton arguments, which were not substantiated with any specific information or elaboration as to how they apply to his present appeal.

11.It is incumbent on the applicant to point out the Judge's errors with sufficient particulars.  In our view, the matters set out in the applicant’s notice of appeal and skeleton arguments failed to identify any error on the part of the Judge. They do not constitute any viable grounds of appeal and lack substance. We see no basis to interfere with the Judge’s decision. 

12.The applicant’s appeal is devoid of merits.  We dismiss it accordingly.

The applicant, unrepresented, acted in person