RE BUI VAN CHAU

CACV 941/2025, [2026] HKCA 65

On Appeal From [2025] HKCFI 4711

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 941 OF 2025

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 897 OF 2024)

________________________

________________________

________________________

J U D G M E N T

________________________

Hon K Yeung J (giving the Judgment of the Court):

1.  This is the applicant’s appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge KW Lung (the “Judge”)  dated 15 October 2025 ([2025] HKCFI 4711)  (the “Leave Decision”)  refusing his application for leave to apply for judicial review (the “Leave Application”)  against the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office (the “Board”)  dated 22 May 2024 (the “Board’s Decision”), whereby the Board dismissed his appeal against the decision of the Director of Immigration (the “Director”)  dated 29 December 2023.

2.  The applicant’s background, the basis of his claim and arguments advanced before the Board as well as the Board’s reasons for rejecting his appeal are all set out in the Board’s Decision: see [1] - [37], [48] - [59], [72] - [104]; and [1] - [11] of the Leave Decision.  The Judge has also set out in detail the grounds advanced by the applicant in support of the Leave Application and his reasons for refusing the Leave Application: see [12] - [18] of the Leave Decision.  We will not repeat those details herein.

3.  In his Notice of Appeal filed on 28 October 2025, the applicant states, in summary, that he will face the risk of being killed or harmed by his creditors if he is to return, that the Director’s suggestion of relocation is not feasible, and that the Immigration Department did not consider his various rights.  Those are bare allegations unsupported by evidence.  There is also nothing in the Notice of Appeal which directs at the Judge’s Leave Decision.  He simply requests the Court of Appeal to give him a chance to seek justice and to help him get asylum in Hong Kong.

4.  In his supporting affirmation of 28 October 2025, he barely asserts that “I understand that there is a good ground of appeal that was not necessarily considered at the stage of applying for leave for Judicial Review”.  He asserts further that “I was informed that the [Director] and [the Board] did not see the grounds to reserve their decision”. He does not elaborate upon those assertions.

5.  The applicant lodged his written submissions on 19 December 2025.  They relate to complaints against the Board’s Decision, but not the Judge’s Leave Decision.  They are bare assertions unsupported by the evidence which the Board has assessed.

6.  We heard the appeal on 15 January 2026.  An interpreter was present to provide language assistance.  During the hearing, he did not make any oral submission.

Discussion

7.  The relevant legal principles governing appeals in non-refoulement cases are set out in Nupur Mst v Director of Immigration[2018] HKCA 524 at [14].

8.  In particular, in an appeal against refusal of leave to apply for judicial review in non-refoulement cases, the Court of Appeal will 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’s role is not to examine the decision maker’s decision afresh as if it were a fresh application for judicial review.  See Nupur Mst v Director of Immigration at [14(6)].

9.  In light of the above, it is thus incumbent upon the applicant in this appeal to point out any error he says the Judge has made in the Leave Decision with sufficient particulars and details.

10.  Nowhere in his Notice of Appeal, affirmation or written submissions has the applicant identified any such error with any particulars.  On this basis alone, his appeal must be dismissed.

11.  In any event, his assertions are all general, bare and vague ones unsupported by particulars or evidence.  General and bare assertions of his fear if refouled do not constitute valid grounds of appeal: Re Saldua Dorothy Trifalgar[2022] HKCA 627 at [6].  We see no basis to disturb the Leave Decision.

12.  For the above reasons, the applicant’s appeal is wholly without merit.  The applicant’s appeal is hereby dismissed.

The applicant, unrepresented, appeared in person.