Nguyen Tu Doanh v. Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office
|
CACV 1080/2025, [2026] HKCA 1468 On Appeal From [2025] HKCFI 5162 IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION COURT OF APPEAL CIVIL APPEAL NO 1080 OF 2025 (ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 1105 OF 2025) ________________________ BETWEEN
_____________________
_____________________ JUDGMENT _____________________ The Court: INTRODUCTION 1.This is the Applicant’s appeal against the order of DHCJ K.W. Lung (“the Judge”) dated 12 November 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 24 April 2025 (“the Board’s Decision”). BACKGROUND 2.The Applicant is a national of Vietnam. The Applicant previously lodged a non-refoulement claim on the basis that, if refouled, he would be harmed or killed by his creditor, from whom he had borrowed 10 billion VND and he was unable to repay the loan. The Applicant’s claim was rejected by the Director of Immigration (“the Director”) on 27 February 2025, and the appeal against the Director’s decision was rejected by the Board on 24 April 2025. 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, the hyperlink to which can be found in the CALL-1 Form. 3.The Applicant’s application for leave to apply for judicial review was refused by the Judge on 12 November 2025. Details of the Judge’s reasons for refusing to grant leave can be found in the CALL-1 Form. GROUNDS OF APPEAL 4.In the Notice of Appeal filed on 25 November 2025, the Applicant essentially argues that he would be harmed or even killed by his father’s creditors and followers if he returned to Vietnam, that the Director failed to properly assess that internal relocation is not feasible, and that the Director failed to consider his human rights. 5.In his skeleton arguments filed on 29 June 2026, the Applicant argues that:
6.The appeal was heard on 14 August 2026. The Applicant attended the hearing in person with the assistance of a Vietnamese interpreter and confirmed that he had nothing further to add. LEGAL PRINCIPLES 7.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)). 8.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. DISCUSSION & DISPOSITION 9.The matters raised in the Applicant’s Notice of Appeal and skeleton arguments are all general allegations without particulars. In particular, the complaints in the skeleton arguments are only directed at the Board. They do not relate to the Judge’s reasons for refusing to grant leave to the Applicant to apply for judicial review and do not constitute any valid grounds of appeal against the Judge’s decision. Furthermore, general assertions of fear if refouled do not constitute proper grounds of appeal: Re Saldua Dorothy Trifalgar [2022] HKCA 627 at [6]. 10.The Applicant has failed to identify or show any error in the Judge’s decision refusing to grant leave to apply for judicial review, or raise any viable ground of appeal against the Order. 11.The Applicant’s appeal has no merit, and is dismissed.
The Applicant, acting in person |
Cases cited in this judgment