JOBE EBRIMA v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE
HTML content
CACV 629/2025, [2026] HKCA 129
On Appeal From [2025] HKCFI 3333
IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
COURT OF APPEAL
CIVIL APPEAL NO 629 OF 2025
(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 958 OF 2020)
________________________
_____________________
| Before: | Hon Poon CJHC and Ng J in Court |
| Date of Hearing: | 30 January 2026 |
| Date of Judgment: | 11 February 2026 |
________________________
JUDGMENT
________________________
The Court:
INTRODUCTION
1. This is the Applicant’s appeal against the order of DHCJ Michael Wong (“the Judge”) dated 6 August 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 15 May 2020 (“the Board’s Decision”).
BACKGROUND
2. The Applicant is a national of Gambia. The Applicant’s non-refoulement claim is put on the basis that, if refouled, he would at risk of being be harmed by his father, the police, the government and the Gambian society for his homosexuality. The Applicant’s non-refoulement claim was rejected by the Director of Immigration (“the Director”) on 24 September 2019, and the appeal against the Director’s decision was rejected by the Board on 15 May 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, the hyperlink to which can be found in the CALL-1 Form dated 6 August 2025.
3. The Applicant’s application for leave to apply for judicial review was refused by the Judge on 6 August 2025. Details of the Judge’s reasons for refusing to grant leave can be found in the CALL-1 Form.
GROUNDS OF APPEAL
4. In the Notice of Appeal filed on 20 August 2025, the Applicant states the following:
“… the grounds of this appeal are that the Applicant will face hardship if he is to return back to his home country and that the Torture Claims Appeal Board has significantly relied on the source of news which is not officially recognized, or it is simply hearsay. They have also relied on some cases which are outdated considering the dramatic changes. The lack of credible source of information has resulted in them making groundless speculations.”
5. In the written submission filed on 24 December 2025, the Applicant essentially argues the following:
(1) He disagrees with the decisions of the Director and the Board. They erred in law and failed to protect his rights.
(2) The Director and the Board did not consider his safety in assessing the reasonableness of internal relocation.
(3) The country of origin information used by the Director and the Board was misleading because Gambia does not provide protection to homosexuals.
(4) The Director and the Board failed to give proper consideration to his need for protection. State protection is unavailable to him since his father is using the police to chase after him.
(5) He needs the protection that Hong Kong offers.
(6) His right under BOR 2 was violated.
(7) Homosexual is still a crime under Gambian law and most homosexuals are stoned to death.
(8) The Gambian police will arrest him. His father, being disappointed in him, has authorised them to subject him to ill-treatment.
LEGAL PRINCIPLES
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 below 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.
DISCUSSION & DISPOSITION
8. The matters raised in the Applicant’s Notice of Appeal and written submission are directed at the Director and the Board, and they are all general allegations without particulars. They do not constitute any valid grounds of appeal against the Judge’s decision. Furthermore, general assertions of fear if refouled do not constitute proper grounds of appeal: Re Saldua Dorothy Trifalgar[2022] HKCA 627 at [6].
9. The Applicant has failed to identify or show any error in the Judge’s decision refusing to grant leave to apply for judicial review, or raise any viable ground of appeal against the Order.
10. The Applicant’s appeal has no merit, and is dismissed.
| (Jeremy Poon) Chief Judge of the High Court | (Peter Ng) Judge of the Court of First Instance |
The Applicant, acting in person