Case Document

100%

CACV 1084/2025, [2026] HKCA 1734

On Appeal From [2025] HKCFI 5574

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 1084 OF 2025

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO. 642 OF 2021)

____________________

BETWEEN

	HA THUY QUYNH	Applicant
	and
	TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD	Putative Respondent
	and
	DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION	Putative Interested Party

____________________

Before:

Hon Au and Anthony Chan JJA in Court

Date of Written Submissions:	19 December 2026
Date of Judgment:	9 October 2026

________________

JUDGMENT

________________

Hon Anthony Chan JA (giving the Judgment of the Court) :

1.This is the Applicant’s appeal against the order of Deputy High Court Judge Bruno Chan (“Judge”) dated 18 November 2025 (“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 (“Board”) dated 16 April 2021 (“Board’s Decision”) whereby the Board dismissed her appeal against the decision of the Director of Immigration (“Director”) dated 16 September 2020.

2.The Applicant is a national of Vietnam. She lodged a non-refoulement claim with the Immigration Department on the basis that, if refouled, she would be harmed or killed by her creditor over her unpaid debts. The Applicant’s non-refoulement claim was rejected by the Director, and her appeal against it was rejected by the Board. Details of the Applicant’s claim and the Board’s reasons for rejecting the Applicant’s appeal can be found in the Board’s Decision, the hyperlink to which can be found in the Form CALL-1 dated 18 November 2025 at footnote 1.

3.The Applicant’s application for leave to apply for judicial review was refused by the Judge and details of the Judge’s reasons for refusing to grant leave can be found in the Form CALL-1.

4.By a Notice of Appeal filed on 25 November 2025, the Applicant seeks to appeal the Order to this Court. For the grounds of appeal, the Applicant stated that :

“We would like to reject and review the decision that made by the Court and torture claim Appeal Board. If I returned to Vietnam I would be harmed or killed by my creditor over my unpaid debts.”

5.On 25 November 2025, the Applicant confirmed in writing her consent to this appeal being disposed of on paper without an oral hearing.

6.Pursuant to the Directions of the Registrar of Civil Appeals dated 25 November 2025, the Applicant was required to lodge written submissions on or before 9 December 2025.

7.The Applicant lodged her written submissions on 22 December 2025, which was 13 days after the deadline. Notwithstanding the delay in lodging the written submissions, we will consider the same in this appeal.

8.The Applicant’s written submissions repeated the gist of her non-refoulement claim. She also claimed that she gave birth to a daughter on 14 April 2021 (whose father disappeared shortly thereafter), her daughter is attending school in Hong Kong and she is fearful that both she and her daughter may face threats and dangers from her creditors if they return to Vietnam. She further claimed that she would be unable to work and support her daughter in Vietnam due to the risk of being found by her creditors and has no relatives or friends there to assist her.

9.The general approach of this Court in dealing with appeals in non-refoulement cases has been 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, this Court 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. This Court’s role is not to examine the Board’s decision afresh as if it is a fresh application for judicial review: see Nupur Mst at [14(6)].

10.The matters concerning the Applicant’s daughter were not raised by her in the application below (Form CALL-1, [7]). The Applicant is not entitled to raise them for the first time in this Court. The Board “was not convinced that the Creditor and his followers, if they ever were, are still chasing the [Applicant] all over her home country and want to harm her” (Board’s Decision, [28]). General assertions of fear if refouled do not constitute proper grounds of appeal: see Re Saldua Dorothy Trifalgar [2022] HKCA 627 at [6]. The Board’s Decision was scrutinized by the Judge, who did not find any public law error in it. There is no viable ground of appeal against the Order. We see no basis to interfere with the Judge’s decision.

11.For the above reasons, the Applicant’s appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs.