Ha Thi Oanh v. Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office

CACV 1183/2025, [2026] HKCA 1739

On Appeal From [2025] HKCFI 5600

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 1183 OF 2025

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO. 1172 OF 2025)

____________________

BETWEEN

____________________

________________

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 K.W. Lung (“Judge”) dated 1 December 2025 (“Order”) refusing to grant leave for the Applicant to apply for judicial review out of time. The intended judicial review was against the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office (“Board”) dated 27 June 2024 whereby the Board dismissed her appeal against the decision of the Director of Immigration (“Director”) dated 6 November 2023.

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 will be harmed or killed by her creditor from whom she had borrowed two loans for her land resale business, which she is unable to repay. The Applicant’s non-refoulement claim was rejected by the Director, and her appeal 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 1 December 2025 at [4].

3.The Applicant’s application for leave to apply for judicial review, which was out of time by more than 7 months, was refused by the Judge and details of the Judge’s reasons for refusing to extend time for the leave application can be found in the Form CALL-1.

4.By a Notice of Appeal filed on 12 December 2025, the Applicant seeks to appeal the Order to this Court. In gist, the Applicant’s grounds of appeal are that she will be tortured, beaten or even killed by her creditor and her followers if she returns to Vietnam, the Director’s suggestion to relocate is “completely unfeasible” and that the Director did not consider her human rights.

5.On 12 December 2025, the Applicant also filed an affirmation (“Affirmation”) claiming that there was a “good ground of appeal that was not necessarily considered” in the judicial review stage and that the Director and the Board “did not see the grounds to reserve their decisions”.

6.The Applicant has failed to lodge written submissions in support of her appeal in accordance with the directions given by the Registrar of Civil Appeals on 12 December 2025. She is therefore deemed to have abandoned the right to rely on written submissions in the present appeal. The Applicant has consented to this appeal being disposed on paper by this Court without an oral hearing. We will accordingly deal with the appeal on paper on the basis of the materials already filed with the Court.

7.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)].

8.The grounds contained in the Notice of Appeal have no substance. The same applies to the claims in the Affirmation. The Applicant has failed to identify any error in the Judge’s decision. Insofar as the grounds or claims concern the Director’s decision, that decision is not reviewable as it has been overtaken by the Board’s decision. There is no viable ground of appeal against the Order. We see no basis to interfere with the Judge’s decision.

9.In the premises, this appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs.

The Applicant acting in person