NANKABIRWA HASFWA v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

CACV 331/2025, [2026] HKCA 778

On appeal from [2025] HKCFI 1525

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 331 OF 2025

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 3846 OF 2019)

________________________

BETWEEN

	NANKABIRWA HASFWA	Applicant
	and
	TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD/ NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE	Putative Respondent
	and
	DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION	Putative Interested Party

________________________

Before:

Hon Poon CJHC and Ng J in Court

Date of Judgment:

30 April 2026

________________________

J U D G M E N T

________________________

The Court:

INTRODUCTION

1.  This is the applicant’s appeal against the order of Deputy High Court Judge (Non-refoulement Claims)  Martin Wong (“the Judge”)  dated 12 May 2025 (“the Order”)  refusing to grant leave to apply for judicial review of the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office (“the Board”)  dated 9 December 2019  (“the Board’s Decision”)  whereby the Board dismissed her appeal against the decision of the Director of Immigration (“the Director”)  dated 23 October 2018 (“the Director’s Decision”).

BACKGROUND

2.  The applicant is a national of Uganda.  She lodged a non-refoulement claim with the Immigration Department on the basis that, if refouled, she would be harmed or killed by people with whom she has a land dispute.  The applicant’s non-refoulement claim was rejected by the Director, and the appeal against it was rejected by the Board.  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, the hyperlink to which can be found in the Form CALL-1.

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.  

GROUNDS OF APPEAL

4.  By a notice of appeal filed on 26 May 2025, the applicant sought to appeal the Judge’s decision to this court.  For the grounds of appeal, the applicant stated that “I have prepared this application without legal representation. I reserve the right to amend or supplement this Notice of Appeal in due course.”

5.  The appeal was scheduled to be heard on 24 February 2026. The applicant has failed to lodge any skeleton argument in support of her appeal in accordance with the directions given by the Registrar of Civil Appeals on 2 January 2026.  Accordingly, the applicant is deemed to have waived her 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 dated 28 January 2026.

DISCUSSION & DISPOSITION

6.  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 was a fresh application for judicial review (see Nupur Mst v Director of Immigration[2018] HKCA 524, at §14(6)).

7.  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 are errors of law or procedural unfairness or irrationality in the decision of the Board: Re Kartini[2019] HKCA 1022.

8.  In the present case, the Judge found no error of law or procedural unfairness or irrationality in the decision of the Board.  The  mere assertions as stated in her grounds of appeal, which were not substantiated with any specific information or elaboration as to how they apply to her present appeal, do not constitute any viable grounds of appeal either and lack substance.

9.  The applicant’s appeal is devoid of merits.  We dismiss it accordingly

(Jeremy Poon)	(Peter Ng)
Chief Judge of the High Court	Judge of the Court of First Instance

The applicant, unrepresented, acted in person