Hoang Van Luong v. Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office

CACV 1166/2025 & CAMP 117/2026, [2026] HKCA 1603

On Appeal From [2025] HKCFI 5926

CACV 1166/2025

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 1166 OF 2025

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 482 OF 2021)

________________________

________________________

AND

CAMP 117/2026

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO 117 OF 2026

(ON AN INTENDED APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 482 OF 2021)

________________________

________________________

_____________________

JUDGMENT

_____________________

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

1.There are before the Court:

(1)  the Applicant’s appeal in CACV 1166/2025 pursuant to a Notice of Appeal filed and served on 10 December 2025 against the order of Deputy High Court Judge To (“the Judge”) dated 5 December 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 2 December 2020 (“the Board’s Decision”), whereby the Board dismissed the Applicant’s appeal against the decision of the Director of Immigration (“the Director”) dated 13 February 2018; and

(2)  the Applicant’s application by summons filed on 23 April 2026 (“the Summons”) in CAMP 117/2026 for extension of time to appeal against the Order.

2.By written confirmation dated 10 December 2025, the Applicant consented to his appeal being disposed of on paper by the Court without an oral hearing.

3.Insofar as the Summons is concerned and having considered the documents before us, we are of the view that it is appropriate to determine the Summons on paper without an oral hearing under Order 59, r 14A of the Rules of the High Court, Cap 4A.

BRIEF BACKGROUND

4.The Applicant alleges that, if refouled to Vietnam, he will be harmed or killed by his creditor (Bui Van Vinh), who has triad connections, because he is unable to repay a loan he borrowed for his business[1]. 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 §§2-7 of the CALL-1 Form).  We do not propose to repeat them here.

5.The Judge’s reasons for dismissing the Applicant’s application for leave to apply for judicial review are set out at §9 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 Judge considered that there was no error of law or procedural unfairness in the Board’s Decision, and the Board’s Decision was not Wednesbury reasonable or irrational.  The Judge held that the Applicant’s intended challenge against the Board’s Decision had no realistic prospect of success[2].

THE APPEAL (CACV 1166/2025)

6.In his Notice of Appeal filed on 10 December 2025, the Applicant repeats his claimed fear of being harmed by his creditor in Vietnam, and asserts that his creditor and the subordinates of his creditor disregard the law and are willing to kill people to satisfy their anger and ferocity.  He disagrees with the Director’s assessment that he could move to another location in Vietnam to avoid the 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.

7.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 10 December 2025.

THE APPLICATION TO EXTEND TIME TO APPEAL (CAMP 117/2026)

8.In the meantime and pending the determination of his appeal by the Court of Appeal, the Applicant applied by a summons filed in the court below on 16 March 2026 for an extension of time to appeal against the Order.  It appears that the Judge was not made aware of the Applicant’s appeal against the Order in CACV 1166/2025 lodged on 10 December 2025.  The Judge dismissed the Applicant’s summons for the reasons set out at §§3-8 of the Judge’s decision of 10 April 2026 ([2026] HKCFI 1877).  It is not necessary to repeat them here.

9.By the Summons filed on 23 April 2026, the Applicant applies to the Court of Appeal for leave to appeal out of time against the Judge’s order of “10 April 2021”, and “to advance a new sole ground of appeal”, without identifying what that ground might be.  In his supporting affirmation of the same date, the Applicant asked for leave to appeal against the Judge’s decision of 10 April 2026, and explained that his appeal “was delayed due to circumstances beyond [his] control, primarily the failure to receive the Decision” (sic). 

DISCUSSION

CAMP 117/2026

10.We shall first deal with the Summons, which can be disposed of briefly.

11.The Summons is wholly unnecessary as the Applicant has already lodged his appeal against the Order to the Court of Appeal on 10  December 2025 within the 14-day time period prescribed under Order 53, r 3(4) of the Rules of the High Court.  The Summons is misconceived, and is dismissed.

CACV 1166/2025

12.As for the Applicant’s appeal, the Court of Appeal’s general approach in dealing with appeals in non-refoulement claims is set out in Nupur Mst v Director of Immigration [2018] HKCA 524, at §14.  In particular, 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, at §14(6)).

13.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 error 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.

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

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

The Applicant, acting in person

[1]  See §§3 and 6 of the Board’s Decision.

[2]  We note at §1 of the Form CALL-1, the Judge stated, mistakenly, that the Applicant filed the Form 86 on 8 April 2019.  In fact, the Form 86 was filed on 8 April 2021.  This mistake is merely clerical, and does not affect the Judge’s substantive reasoning for dismissing the Applicant’s leave application.