Nguyen Duc Tien v. Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office

CACV 613/2025, [2026] HKCA 1864

On appeal from [2025] HKCFI 3432

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 613 OF 2025

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 1477 OF 2020)

________________________

BETWEEN

________________________

_____________________

J U D G M E N T

_____________________

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

Background

1.This is an appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge Val Chow dated 13 August 2025[1] refusing to grant extension of time for the applicant to seek leave to apply for judicial review against the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board (“the Board”) concerning his non‑refoulement claim. 

Grounds of appeal

2.The applicant stated the following grounds of appeal in the notice of appeal filed on 18 August 2025:

(1)  He could not file his application in time because he does not understand Hong Kong law, the English or Chinese language and has no friends to assist him or money to hire a lawyer;

(2)  He cannot return to Vietnam because the criminal gangs are searching for him and would kill him if they find him. 

3.In his written submissions, he reiterated the problems he faced in Vietnam and further submitted that:

(1)  His situation falls within Hong Kong’s obligations under the Unified Screening Mechanism to protect individuals facing a real risk of torture, cruel or inhuman treatment, or persecution;

(2)  Denying leave solely on procedural grounds would expose him to real risk of death or serious harm, which would be contrary to fundamental principles of justice and to Hong Kong’s international human rights obligations.

4.The applicant submitted a written consent for this appeal to be disposed of on paper without an oral hearing.  He subsequently filed a request for dismissal of appeal on 5 June 2026.  We therefore find that the appeal can be dismissed on the basis of his request for dismissal.  

5.In any event, we also take the view that the appeal is without merits.  The judge did not reject the applicant’s leave application on procedural ground as alleged by the applicant.  In fact, the judge duly assessed the merits of the intended challenge against the Board’s decision.  The rest of the applicant’s grounds and submissions are just bare assertions without sufficient particulars or evidence in support.  The applicant failed to provide any viable ground and/or evidence against the judge’s decision. 

6.For the above reasons, the appeal is dismissed accordingly.

The Applicant (Appellant), acting in person