Re Trinh Van Truong

CACV 289/2025, [2026] HKCA 1145

On Appeal From [2025] HKCFI 1723

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 289 OF 2025

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO. 2802 OF 2019)

________________________

________________________

________________________

J U D G M E N T

________________________

Hon Cheung JA (giving the Judgment of the Court)  :

1.This is the applicant’s appeal against the order of Deputy High Court Judge Levy dated 8 May 2025 ([2025] HKCFI 1723)  (‘the Leave Decision’)  refusing his application for extension of time[1] for leave to apply for judicial review (‘the Leave Application’)  against the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office (‘the Board’)  dated 23 May 2019 (‘the Board’s Decision’), whereby the Board dismissed his appeal against the decision of the Director of Immigration (‘the Director’)  dated 12 January 2018, refusing his non-refoulement claim.

2.The applicant did not request an oral hearing and consented to the appeal being disposed of on paper by the Court.  We will, accordingly, deal with the appeal on paper on the basis of the materials already filed with the Court.

3.The applicant’s background, the basis of his claim and arguments advanced before the Board as well as the Board’s reasons for rejecting her appeal are all set out in the Board’s Decision: see [4]-[5], [8], [13]-[19] of the Leave Decision[2]. 

4.The applicant is a Vietnamese.  He entered Hong Kong illegally on 19 March 2017 by boat via the Mainland.  He was arrested and handed over to the Immigration Department.   He made a non-refoulement claim on 9 June 2017 under all applicable grounds.  The basis of his claim is that if he returned to Vietnam, he would be underemployed.  He became homeless after his deceased parents’ land was confiscated, and was unable to support himself.  He came to Hong Kong to seek for a better life[3].

5.The Judge also sets out the grounds advanced by the applicant in support of the Leave Application and his reasons for refusing the Leave Application: see [10]-[19] of the Leave Decision.  We will not repeat the details herein.

6.By the Notice of Appeal filed on 14 May 2025, the applicant stated the following in summary :

1)  The applicant has been in Hong Kong since 2017.  He has adapted to Hong Kong life and is gradually unfamiliar with Vietnam life.  There is no guarantee that he can reintegrate into Vietnam life if he returns;

2)  Life in Hong Kong is good and it is his wish to come to Hong Kong; and

3)  Due to importance of his appeal his appeal should be allowed.

7.In his supporting affirmation, the applicant stated the following in summary :

1)  He has a good ground of appeal which was not considered at the leave stage; and

2)  The Director/The Board ‘did not see the grounds to reserve their decisions’.

I.  Discussion

8.The relevant legal principles governing appeals in non-refoulement cases are set out in Nupur Mst v Director of Immigration [2018] HKCA 524 at [14].

9.In particular, in an appeal against refusal of leave to apply for judicial review in non-refoulement cases, 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.  The Court’s role is not to examine the decision maker’s decision afresh as if it were a fresh application for judicial review.  See Nupur Mst v Director of Immigration [2018] HKCA 524 at [14(6)].

10.In light of the above, it is thus incumbent on the applicant to point out the errors in the Leave Decision with sufficient particulars and specifics.

11.However, nowhere in his Notice of Appeal nor supporting affirmation did the applicant identify any error committed by the Judge with specific particulars.  His assertions are all general, bare and vague allegations unsupported by specific particulars or evidence.  General assertions of his fear if refouled do not constitute proper grounds of appeal: Re Saldua Dorothy Trifalgar [2022] HKCA 627 at [6].  The Court will not usurp the role of the Board.  Assessment of evidence, country of origin information materials, 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.  No such error was demonstrated by the applicant.  Clearly, his assertions do not constitute viable grounds of appeal and lack substance.  We see no basis to interfere with the Leave Decision.

12.For the above reasons, the applicant’s appeal against the Leave Decision has no merit and is dismissed.

The applicant, acting in person