Cao Thi Thanh v. Torture Claims Appeal Board

CACV 728/2026, [2026] HKCA 1557

On Appeal From [2026] HKCFI 3662

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 728 OF 2026

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 98 OF 2023)

________________________

BETWEEN

_____________________

_____________________

JUDGMENT

_____________________

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

Introduction

1.This is the Applicant’s appeal against the order of DHCJ Bruno Chan (“the Judge”) dated 30 June 2026 (“the Order”) refusing to grant leave to apply for judicial review of the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board (“the Board”) dated 5 January 2023 (“the Board’s Decision”).

Background

2.The Applicant is a national of Vietnam. She lodged a non-refoulement claim on the basis that, if refouled, she would be harmed or killed by her creditor for failing to repay her debts. The Applicant’s claim was rejected by the Director of Immigration (“the Director”) on 22 October 2021, and the appeal against the Director’s decision was rejected by the Board on 5 January 2023. 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 on 30 June 2026. 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 8 July 2026, the Applicant stated the following:

“I do not agree with the dicision of the court of first instance. The court did not scrutinize my claim properly. Despite my problem in my home country is very severe the court of first instance and the torture claims appeal board rejected my claim. The dicision makes considered my claims as asimply. If I return to my country I will be killed by enemies.” (sic)

5.In the 4-page skeleton argument filed on 15 July 2026, the Applicant essentially alleged that the decision of the Board and the Judge were unreasonable, irrational, procedurally unfair or otherwise deficient and claimed to be in fear of hardship and being attacked, tortured and killed by enemies if she is refouled without any particulars or explanation.

6.The appeal was supposed to be heard on 25 August 2026. The Applicant failed to attend the hearing. Her appeal was dismissed with reasons to be handed down later.

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.

9.General assertions of fear if refouled do not constitute proper grounds of appeal: Re Saldua Dorothy Trifalgar [2022] HKCA 627 at [6].

Discussion and Disposition

10.The matters raised in the Applicant’s Notice of Appeal and skeleton argument are all general allegations without particulars. They do not constitute any valid grounds of appeal against the Order.

11.The Applicant has failed to identify 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.

12.The Applicant’s appeal has no merit, and is dismissed.

The Applicant, acting in person