DANG THI HOA v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD

CACV 432/2025, [2025] HKCA 802

On appeal from [2025] HKCFI 2546

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 432 OF 2025

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 6 OF 2023)

________________________

________________________

________________________

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 Bruno Chan dated 17 June 2025 refusing to grant leave to the applicant to apply for judicial review against the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board concerning her non‑refoulement claim ([2025] HKCFI 2546).

Grounds of appeal

2.  The applicant stated the following grounds of appeal in the notice of appeal filed on 23 June 2025:

(1)  If she returns to Vietnam, she will face the risk of being killed or harmed by her creditor because the creditors and gangsters in Vietnam are different from those in Hong Kong. They disregard the law and are willing to kill people;

(2)  It is completely unfeasible for her to change to live in another location as she will face many difficulties and obstacles;

(3)  The Director of Immigration did not consider the human rights under the Basic Law or the “Hong Kong Human Rights and Democracy Act”, International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights or International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights.

3.  The applicant initially gave a written confirmation indicating that she would like the appeal to be disposed of by oral hearing. She subsequently filed a request for dismissal of appeal on 24 July 2025. The appeal can therefore be dismissed on the basis of her request for dismissal. It is unnecessary to dispose of the appeal by oral hearing.

4.  In any event, we also take the view that the appeal is without merits as the applicant’s grounds of appeal are just bare assertions without sufficient particulars or evidence in support. The applicant also failed to identify any error in the judge’s decision.

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

The Applicant (Appellant), acting in person