ALI SANDA MOHAMED v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

CACV 780/2025, [2026] HKCA 420

On appeal from [2025] HKCFI 4184

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 780 OF 2025

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO. 1160 OF 2020)

__________________________

__________________________

________________

JUDGMENT

________________

The Court:

INTRODUCTION

1.  This is the applicant’s appeal against the order of Deputy High Court Judge (Non-refoulement Claims) Lewis Law (“theJudge”) dated 10 September 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 20 May 2020 (“the Board’s Decision”) whereby the Board dismissed his appeal against the decision of the Director of Immigration (“the Director”) dated 5 October 2018 (“theDirector’sDecision”).

BACKGROUND

2.  The applicant is a national of Niger. He lodged a non-refoulement claim with the Immigration Department on the basis of his fear that, if refouled, he would be harmed or killed by his ex-employer, who allegedly had police connection, over a money matter.  The applicant’s non-refoulement claim was rejected by the Director, and his 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.

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 22 September 2025, the applicant sought to appeal the Judge’s decision to this court.  For the grounds of appeal, the applicant stated that “I am disagree with the decision maker authorities. The decision made by the Director of Immigration, as well as the decision made by the Adjudicator of the Torture Claim Appeal Board. There is no proper investigation in my claim. My life still in danger in my home land.”

5.  In the applicant’s skeleton argument lodged on 27 January 2026, the applicant contested the Director and the Board’s decision, without advancing any substantive argument against the Judge’s decision.

6.  The appeal was heard on 11 March 2026.  The applicant attended the hearing in person with the assistance of a French interpreter and confirmed that he has nothing further to add.

LEGAL PRINCIPLES

7.  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)).

8.  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, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the decision of the Board: Re Kartini[2019] HKCA 1022.

DISCUSSION & DISPOSITION

9.  In the present case, no error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the decision of the Board was detected by the Judge or was pointed out by the applicant apart from the bare assertions as stated in his grounds of appeal and in his skeleton argument.

10.  We are unpersuaded by the Applicant’s complaint of lack of legal and language assistance. As a matter of law, a non-refoulement claimant is not entitled to free legal representation at all stages of the process, and the high standard of fairness required by law would not entail an interpretation service to be made available at any time as the applicant desired. See Re Gurnishan Singh[2018] HKCA 704 at §§11 and 13. It is further noted that the Applicant was able to, either by himself or with assistance from others, lodge with the court documents written in comprehensible English.

11.  It is incumbent on the applicant to point out the Judge’s errors with sufficient particulars.  In our view, the matters set out in the applicant’s notice of appeal and skeleton argument failed to identify and substantiate any error on the part of the Judge. They do not constitute any viable grounds of appeal and lack substance. We see no basis to interfere with the Judge’s decision. 

12.  For the above reasons, the applicant’s appeal is devoid of merits.  Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal.

The applicant, unrepresented, acted in person