Vu Duy Linh v. Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office

CACV 1014/2025, [2026] HKCA 1601

On Appeal From [2025] HKCFI 5037

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 1014 OF 2025

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 2240 OF 2020)

________________________

BETWEEN

_____________________

_____________________

JUDGMENT

_____________________

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

1.This is the Applicant’s appeal against the order of Deputy High Court Judge K W Lung (“the Judge”) dated 3 November 2025 (“the Order”) refusing to grant leave to the Applicant to apply for judicial review of the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office (“the Board”) dated 10 January 2020 (“the Board’s Decision”), whereby the Board dismissed the Applicant’s appeal against the decision of the Director of Immigration (“the Director”) dated 28 August 2017.

2.The Applicant alleges that, if refouled to Vietnam, he will be harmed or killed by his creditor because he was unable to repay a loan he borrowed for his business.  The Applicant’s background, the basis of his claim, the findings of the Board and its reasons for dismissing his appeal against the Director’s decision have been set out in detail in the Board’s Decision, and summarised by the Judge in his decision (see §§5, 6 and 9-11 of the CALL-1 Form).  We do not propose to repeat them here.

3.The Judge’s reasons for dismissing the Applicant’s application for leave to apply for judicial review are set out at §§14-18 of the CALL-1 Form.  In gist, the Judge refused to extend time for the Applicant to apply for leave to apply for judicial review, and dismissed the leave application, because the Applicant had failed to show any realistic prospect of success in his intended judicial review of the Board’s Decision.

THIS APPEAL

4.In his Notice of Appeal filed on 13 November 2025, the Applicant repeats his claimed fear of being harmed by his creditor in Vietnam, and asserts that his creditor disregards the law and is willing to kill people to satisfy his anger and ferocity.  He disagrees with the Director’s assessment that he could move to another location in Vietnam to avoid his creditor for various reasons, and alleges that the Immigration Department did not consider his human rights under various instruments including the Basic Law and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

5.On 13 November 2025, the Applicant consented to his appeal being disposed of on paper by the Court without an oral hearing.

6.The Applicant has failed to lodge written submissions in support of his appeal contrary to the directions given by the Registrar of Civil Appeals on 13 November 2025.

DISCUSSION

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.Further, 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, at §13.  No such error of law or procedural unfairness or irrationality in the decision of the Board is shown in the present case.

9.The matters raised in the Applicant’s Notice of Appeal are mostly directed at the Director’s decision, and are general allegations without particulars.  They do not constitute valid grounds of appeal against the Judge’s decision.

10.The Applicant has failed to 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