LE TUYET THANH v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

CACV 901/2025, [2026] HKCA 738

On appeal from [2025] HKCFI 4777

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 901 OF 2025

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO. 1930 OF 2020)

__________________________

__________________________

________________

J U D G M E N T

________________

The Court:

Introduction

1.  This is the applicant’s appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge Bruno Chan (“the Judge”) given in the Form CALL-1 and the Order dated 14 October 2025[1] refusing his application for leave to apply for judicial review against the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board (the “Board”) dated 18 September 2020 (the “Board’s Decision”) whereby the Board dismissed his appeal against the decision of the Director of Immigration (the “Director”) dated 7 July 2020 (the “Director’sDecision”) and rejecting his non‑refoulement protection claim.

The applicant’s claim and the Judge’s decision

2.  The applicant is a national of Vietnam. In his non-refoulement claim filed with the Immigration Department, he stated that, if refouled, he would be harmed or killed by his creditor over an unpaid debt and/or prosecuted by the authorities for the explosion occurred in his mining business that had injured many of his workers. The applicant’s non-refoulement claim was rejected by the Director, and his appeal against it was rejected by the Board on 18 September 2020. 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.

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.

The appeal

4.  By a notice of appeal filed on 20 October 2025 and his supporting affirmation, the applicant sought to appeal the Judge’s decision to this court and his grounds of appeal can be summarised as follows:

a.  The applicant will still face the risk of being harmed or killed by his creditor if he is to return to his home country.

b.  Internal relocation as suggested by the Director is not feasible.

c.  The Director did not consider his human rights under the Basic Law, International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights.

5.  The appeal was scheduled to be heard on 10 February 2026. However, the applicant has failed to lodge any skeleton argument in support of his appeal in accordance with the directions given by the Registrar of Civil Appeals. Accordingly, the applicant is deemed to have waived his right to have an oral hearing of the appeal, and elected to have the appeal disposed of on paper. The applicant was informed of the same by the court’s letter.

Our reasons for decision

6.  The Court of Appeal’s general approach in dealing with appeals in non-refoulement cases is 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, the Court of Appeal 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. The Court of Appeal’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)).

7.  Further, the assessment of evidence, country of origin information, risk of harm, state protection and viability of internal relocation are primarily within the province of the Board and the Director. The court below will not intervene by way of judicial review unless there is an error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the decision of the Board: Re Kartini[2019] HKCA 1022.

8.  In the present case, no such error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the decision of the Board was observed by the Judge or was pointed out by the applicant apart from the bare assertions as stated in his grounds of appeal and his supporting affirmation, which were not substantiated with any specific information or elaboration as to how they apply to his present appeal.

9.  In our view, the matters set out in the notice of appeal failed to identify any error on the part of the Judge and do not amount to any viable ground of appeal. The applicant’s appeal is devoid of merits. We dismiss it accordingly.

The applicant, unrepresented, acted in person