DAO THI THU THUY v TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD

CACV 1083/2025, [2026] HKCA 1602

On Appeal From [2025] HKCFI 5573

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 1083 OF 2025

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 644 OF 2021)

________________________

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 Bruno Chan (“the Judge”) dated 18 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 29 April 2021 (“the Board’s Decision”), whereby the Board dismissed the Applicant’s appeal against the decision of the Director of Immigration (“the Director”) dated 28 May 2020.

2.The Applicant alleges that, if refouled to Vietnam, she will be harmed or killed by a moneylender because she was unable to repay a loan that she borrowed in April 2018[1]. The Applicant’s background, the basis of her claim, the findings of the Board and its reasons for dismissing her 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 §§1-4 and 8 of the CALL-1 Form).  We do not propose to repeat them here.

3.The Judge’s reasons for dismissing the Applicant’s leave application are set out at §§10-12 of the CALL-1 Form.  In gist, the Judge found that she had failed to put forward any or any specific ground for her intended judicial review in the Form 86 or her supporting affirmation.  The Judge further held there was no error of law or procedural unfairness in the Board’s Decision, nor any failure by the Board to apply high standard of fairness in its assessment of the Applicant’s claim.

THIS APPEAL

4.In her Notice of Appeal filed on 25 November 2025, the Applicant merely states the following:

“[I] would like to reject and review the decision made by the Court and [the Board].  They disregard my dangerous situation [and] the money problem is not yet settled.” [sic]

5.On 25 November 2025, the Applicant consented to her 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 her appeal contrary to the directions given by the Registrar of Civil Appeals on 25 November 2025.

DISCUSSION

7.In an appeal against refusal of leave to apply for judicial review in a non-refoulement case, 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 Applicant has failed to raise any viable ground of appeal against the Order. 

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

The Applicant, acting in person

[1]  See §25 of the Board’s Decision.