Nguyen Huu Cuong v. Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office

CACV 1016/2025, [2026] HKCA 1627

On Appeal From [2025] HKCFI 5051

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 1016 OF 2025

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 121 OF 2021)

____________

BETWEEN

____________

_________________

J U D G M E N T

_________________

Hon G Lam JA (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 4 November 2025 refusing to grant leave to the applicant to apply for judicial review against the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board/adjudicator of the Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office (“Board”) dated 27 January 2021. In that decision, the Board upheld the decision of the Director of Immigration (“Director”) dated 11 October 2019 rejecting the applicant’s non-refoulement claim.

Background

2.The applicant is a national of Vietnam born in 1981 and his claim was made on the basis that if he returned to Vietnam, his creditor and the creditor’s underlings would harm or kill him due to his inability to repay a loan. Details of the applicant’s background, the basis of his claim and arguments advanced before the Board as well as the Board’s reasons for rejecting his appeal are all set out in the Board’s decision: see [4] of the Form CALL-1. The Judge has set out the grounds advanced by the applicant in support of the application and his reasons for refusal of the application: see [11] – [16] of the Form CALL-1.

Appeal to this Court

3.On 13 November 2025, the applicant filed his Notice of Appeal against the Judge’s decision. His stated grounds of appeal were, essentially, that the gravity of his circumstances have not been given weight by the Director and the Board and that he should be given an opportunity to plead his case properly. The applicant simultaneously filed an affirmation in which he stated that he did not seek advice on procedure, that he received assistance from a friend to prepare the application to present the facts only with no legal language included, that he feared being hunted down by his creditor and the underlings, that there is a good ground of appeal that was not necessarily considered at the stage of applying for leave for judicial review (without specifying any particulars of what that ground is), and that it is a matter of public importance how the “limitation act” is used against litigants (without any explanation of the relevance to his case).

4.The applicant has given consent in writing for this appeal to be disposed of on paper without an oral hearing, and we shall accordingly determine the appeal on the basis of the available documents and materials.

5.The applicant has not lodged any written submissions.

Discussion

6.In assessing the merits of the appeal, we shall have regard to the legal principles which this Court has adopted in dealing with appeals in non-refoulement cases: see 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]. In particular, the role of the Court in a judicial review is not to provide a further avenue of appeal. 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. In the determination of an appeal against the refusal of leave by the Court of First Instance, 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. It is not the role of this Court to examine the decision of the Board afresh as if the appeal were a fresh application for judicial review.

7.In the present case, the Board found that there was no real risk of harm upon refoulement as alleged, because it fundamentally found the applicant’s story of how his boat capsized to be unreasonable, there was no evidence of the creditor’s intention to kill him, there was no evidence to show that state protection would be unavailable to him, and it rejected the applicant’s allegation that internal relocation was not viable for him. These are findings of fact open to the Board based on the evidence it received and for the reasons it gave. The applicant has failed to show any reasonably arguable public law error in relation to the Board’s decision.

8.Equally, the applicant has not been able to demonstrate any error in the decision of the Judge or advance any viable ground of appeal against the Judge’s decision. We are not satisfied that there is any error in the Judge’s decision.

9.The applicant’s appeal is accordingly dismissed.

The Applicant, unrepresented, acting in person