Luu Van Thoan v. Torture Claims Appeal Board/ Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office

CACV 738/2025, [2026] HKCA 1709

On Appeal From [2025] HKCFI 4048

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 738 OF 2025

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 1255 OF 2020)

________________________

BETWEEN

_____________________

_____________________

J U D G M E N T

_____________________

The Court:

1.By a judgment dated 11 February 2026, this Court dismissed the applicant’s appeal against the order of Deputy High Court Judge K W Lung dated 5 September 2025, refusing him leave to apply for judicial review in respect of his non-refoulement claims.

2.By a notice of motion dated 24 February 2026, the applicant applied to us for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal under section 22(1) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance (Cap 484)[1] on the ground that (sic):

“3. I will be tortured, beaten, or even killed if the creditor and the gangsters are too angry and cannot control their emotion and their behavior. If I return to Vietnam, my life will be seriously threatened, probably even dead, because the creditors and the gangsters in Vietnam are different from those in Hong Kong, most of them are cruel and violent. They disregard the law and are willing to kill people to satisfy their anger and ferocity.

4. The Director of Immigration suggested that I change to another location to live to avoid the pursuit of the creditor, but that is completely unfeasible. There will be many difficulties and obstacles that I will have to face in the new location. There is no guarantee that I will be able to adapt to the new place and find a job to earn money to support myself.

5. Moreover, with the nationwide social network of gangsters and clandestine connections with corrupt people in the government and police apparatus, it is quite possible for the creditor and gangsters to find out my new residence. So, I can be very dangerous if I tries to escape to another place in Vietnam.

6. The problem regarding my appeal is that the Immigration Department did not consider my human rights under the Basic Law / Hong Kong Human Rights and Democracy Act / International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights / International Covenant on Economics, Social and Cultural Rights.”

3.In his 6-page written submissions, the applicant recited a number of cases and made generic submissions on the general principles of law relating to non-refoulement claims.

4.The notice of motion does not meet the statutory threshold for leave to be granted because it fails to (a) state any error in our judgment; (b) raise any viable ground of appeal that is reasonably arguable; or (c) identify any question of great general or public importance involved in the intended appeal; and there is no basis to grant leave to appeal on the “or otherwise” limb.

5.In consequence, we refuse to grant leave and dismiss the notice of motion.

The applicant, unrepresented, acting in person