Re Nguyen Duc Qui

CACV 1119/2025, [2026] HKCA 1650

On appeal from [2025] HKCFI 5726

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 1119 OF 2025

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO. 577 OF 2022)

__________________________

__________________________

________________

JUDGMENT

________________

Hon Chu VP (giving the Judgment of the Court):

1.This is the applicant’s appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge Bruno Chan (“the Judge”) given on 26 November 2025 ([2025] HKCFI 5726) refusing to give him leave to judicially review the decision of the Director of Immigration (“the Director”) dated 24 May 2022 which refused his request to make a subsequent non-refoulement protection claim.

2.The applicant had consented to the Court of Appeal disposing of the appeal on the papers without an oral hearing.  Despite directions given by the Court, he has not lodged any written submission to support the appeal.  

3.The applicant is a Vietnamese national aged 31. On 11 December 2013 he surrendered to the Immigration Department, after entering Hong Kong illegally. He raised a non-refoulement claim based on a fear of being harmed or killed by the creditor of his parents and his followers due to the unpaid debts of his parents. By a notice of decision dated 10 March 2017 (“1^st Decision”), the Director rejected the applicant’s non-refoulement claim having regard to the torture risk[1], BOR 2 risk[2], BOR 3 risk[3] and persecution risk[4]. The details of the applicant’s claim were set out in [7] of the 1^st Decision. We will not repeat them.  

4.The applicant did not appeal against the 1^st Decision. On 19 January 2018, he was repatriated to Vietnam. He subsequently re-entered Hong Kong illegally. On 16 February 2022, he was arrested by the police.  On 1 March 2022, the applicant wrote to the Director requesting to make a subsequent non-refoulement claim. At the request of the Director dated 14 March 2022, the applicant provided supplementary information in support of his request.

5.By a decision dated 24 May 2022, the Director refused the request to make a subsequent claim (“2^nd Decision”).  The applicant did not appeal the Director’s decision.  

6.On 6 July 2022, the applicant filed a Form 86 and an affirmation to seek leave to apply for judicial review against the 2^nd Decision.  The applicant advanced the following grounds for seeking relief:

(1)  The Director suggested the applicant could relocate to avoid the creditors, but this is not feasible because the applicant will face many difficulties and obstacles, his health is not good and he will be disadvantaged in the labour market, and he may not be able to adapt and make a living.

(2)  The creditor and his gangsters will be able to track the applicant as they have a nationwide network.

(3)  The creditors and gangsters in Vietnam are cruel, violent, have no regard for the law, and will readily kill people.  The applicant will be tortured, beaten or killed by the creditor if he returns to Vietnam.

7.The Judge heard the application at an oral hearing held on 18 November 2025.  By a Form CALL-1 dated 26 November 2025, the Judge dismissed the application, finding that the intended judicial review had no realistic prospect of success.  In gist, the Judge considered the grounds advanced by the applicant were bare, vague and unparticularized assertions, and there was no legal error, procedural unfairness or failure to apply high standards of fairness in the consideration and assessment of the applicant’s request to make a subsequent claim.

8.By a notice of appeal dated 1 December 2025, the applicant appealed the Judge’s decision to this court.  The grounds of appeal in the notice of appeal are a reiteration of the grounds stated in the Form 86.

9.The general principles regarding an appeal in a non‑refoulement case have been set out comprehensively by the Court of Appeal in Nupur Mst v Director of Immigration [2018] HKCA 524 at §14.  In sum, 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 being challenged.

10.In the present case, the applicant’s request to make a subsequent claim after the rejection of his non-refoulement claim in 2017  was governed by section 37ZO(2) of the Immigration Ordinance, Cap. 115, which required him to provide sufficient evidence in writing to satisfy an immigration officer that (a) there has been a significant change of circumstances since the previous claim was finally determined or withdrawn; and (b) the change, when taken together with the material previously submitted in support of the previous claim, would give the subsequent claim a realistic prospect of success.  Section 37ZO(3) further provided that, in deciding on the request, an immigration officer may take into account any finding of credibility or fact made in relation to a torture claim previously made by the applicant

11.In the 2^nd Decision, the Director took into account the assessment of the applicant’s claim in the 1^st Decision, namely the level of risk of harm was low, it was a private monetary dispute, state protection would be available and internal relocation alternatives are reasonable available.  The Director found that the supplemental information provided by the applicant was essentially the same as that provided for his previous claim and did not satisfy the requirements of section 37ZO(2).  The Director further considered that internal relocation was viable and state protection was available, which would reduce or remove any risk of harm that the applicant may face in his home country.  

12.We agree with the Judge that the applicant’s grounds for seeking relief as contained in the Form 86 were general assertions that are devoid of particulars.  They failed to disclose any basis for the Court to interfere with the Director’s decision.  We would further point out that judicial review is a remedy of last resort and generally an applicant should exhaust all appeal procedures or other alternative remedies before resorting to judicial review.  Accordingly, the applicant ought to have appealed the 2^nd Decision to the Torture Claims Appeal Board before applying for judicial review.  The applicant’s application for leave to apply for judicial review was liable to be dismissed on this ground.

13.In this appeal, the applicant has not identified any error in the Judge’s reasoning and decision.  Merely repeating the grounds made in the Form 86 that were rejected by the Judge without pointing out any error in the reasons for rejection does not constitute viable grounds of appeal.  For the reasons set out above, the applicant’s appeal is devoid of merits.  Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal.

The applicant, unrepresented, acted in person