DOAN THI THOM v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

CACV 972/2025, [2026] HKCA 33

On Appeal from [2025] HKCFI 4826

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 972 OF 2025

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 2284 OF 2020)

________________________

________________________

________________________

J U D G M E N T

________________________

Hon H. Au-Yeung J (giving the Judgment of the Court):

1.  This is the applicant’s appeal against the order of Deputy High Court Judge K.W. Lung (“theJudge”)  dated 22 October 2025 by which her application for leave to apply for judicial review (“theLeave Application”)  against the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board (“the Board”)  dated 14 December 2018 (“theBoard’s Decision”)  was dismissed. By that decision, the Board upheld the decision of the Director of Immigration (“the Director”)  to reject the applicant’s non-refoulement claim.

2.  The applicant is a national of Vietnam.  The basis of her non-refoulement claim had been set out in detail in the Board’s Decision, which may be viewed online via the hyperlink contained in [4] of the CALL-1 Form. 

3.  In [12] – [18] of the CALL-1 Form, the Judge gave reasons for refusing the Leave Application.

4.  By a Notice of Appeal filed on 5 November 2025, the applicant appeals against the Judge’s decision.  The applicant contends that:

(1)  she would be killed or harmed by her creditor if she returns to Vietnam;

(2)  the Director’s view on internal relocation is in fact wrong; and

(3)  the Director did not consider her human rights.

5.  In the affirmation filed in support of the Notice of Appeal, the applicant deposed that :

“1. 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.

2. Additionally, I was informed that the Director of Immigration and Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office did not see the grounds to reserve their decisions.

3.  I humbly request the Court to exercise its discretion to allow me to appeal.”

6.  In her skeleton arguments dated 19 December 2025, the applicant submits, among other things, that:

(1)  the Board took into account irrelevant matters;

(2)  the Board failed to apply high standards of fairness;

(3)  the Board failed to exercise independent assessment;

(4)  the Board should not have dealt with her application by way of paper disposal;

(5)  the Board’s Decision was irrational; and

(6)  the Board failed to take relevant matters into consideration.

7.  At the hearing, the applicant submitted that she would like to stay in Hong Kong so that her children would be able to receive education here. Further, she fears that her children’s safety would be at risk if they are to be repatriated together with her.

8.  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)]).

9.  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 will not intervene by way of judicial review unless there is an error of law or procedural unfairness or irrationality in the decision of the Board: Re Kartini[2019] HKCA 1022, at [13].

10.  None of the grounds mentioned in the Notice of Appeal, the affirmation in support and the skeleton arguments has identified any error on the part of the Judge.  In other words, the applicant has simply failed to advance any viable ground of appeal. 

11.  In any event, we take the view that the Judge is correct in dismissing the Leave Application.

12.  As far as the applicant’s complaint of “lack of oral hearing” is concerned, that has not been raised as a ground in support of her Leave Application. There is no reason for this Court to consider this ground for the first time on appeal. 

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

The applicant, acting in person