CAMARA LASANA v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

CACV 382/2025, [2026] HKCA 418

On appeal from [2025] HKCFI 2283

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 382 OF 2025

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO. 2531 OF 2019)

__________________________

__________________________

________________

JUDGMENT

________________

The Court:

INTRODUCTION

1.  This is the applicant’s appeal against the order of Deputy High Court Judge Reuden Lai (“the Judge”) dated 30 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 21 August 2019 (“the Board’s Decision”) whereby the Board dismissed his appeal against the decision of the Director of Immigration (“the Director”) dated 27 September 2018 (“the Director’s Decision”).

BACKGROUND

2.  The applicant is a national of Gambia. He lodged a non-refoulement claim with the Immigration Department on the basis of his fear that, if refouled, he would be arrested or harmed by the Gambian police or the National Intelligence Agency over a land dispute with President Barrow and the continued violence and unstable political situation in Gambia.  The applicant’s non-refoulement claim was rejected by the Director, and his appeal against it was rejected by the Board.  A summary of the applicant’s background of his claim, and his process before the Director and the Board 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 10 June 2025, the applicant sought to appeal the Judge’s decision to this court.  For the grounds of appeal, the applicant stated that “I don’t agree with the Judgement. I plead to the Judge of Court of Appeal to review my case.”

5.  The applicant lodged his skeleton argument on 26 January 2026, in which he stated that his life would be at risk if refouled, and that he hopes to appeal against the Judge’s decision because he has provided all the necessary information.

6.  Apart from his submissions above, the applicant did not indicate any complaint against or identify any error made by the Judge in dismissing his application for leave to take out a judicial review.

7.  The appeal was heard on 11 March 2026.  The applicant attended the hearing in person and confirmed that he has nothing further to add.

LEGAL PRINCIPLES

8.  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)).

9.  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

10.  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.

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.