BABA ADAMOU v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

CACV 683/2025, [2026] HKCA 150

On appeal from [2025] HKCFI 428

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 683 OF 2025

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO. 2408 OF 2019)

__________________________

__________________________

________________

J U D G M E N T

________________

The Court:

Introduction

1.  This is the applicant’s appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge Levy (“the Judge”) given in the CALL-1 Form and the Order dated 27 January 2025[1] refusing his application for leave to apply for judicial review against the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board (the “Board”) dated 8 July 2019 (the “Board’s Decision”) whereby the Board dismissed his appeal against the decision of the Director of Immigration (the “Director”) dated 31 October 2018 (the “Director’s Decision”) and rejecting his non‑refoulement protection claim.

The applicant’s claim and the Judge’s decision

2.  The applicant is a national of Niger. In his non-refoulement claim form filed with the Immigration Department in September 2018, his claim was put on the basis that, if refouled, he would be harmed or killed by members of Boko Haram, which was an Islamic militant group wanting to recruit people to participate in terrorist activities as well as targeting Christians. The applicant’s non-refoulement claim was rejected by the Director and his appeal against it was rejected by the Board on 8 July 2019. A summary of the applicant’s background 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 CALL-1 Form.

The appeal

4.  On 28 August 2025, Deputy Hight Court Judge Levy granted leave to the applicant to appeal against the Judge’s decision out of time and directed him to file a notice of appeal which he did on 3 September 2025. For the grounds of appeal, the applicant stated 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 They have also relied on some cases which are outdated considering the dramatic changes.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.  The appeal was scheduled to be heard on 27 January 2026. The applicant has failed to lodge skeleton argument in support of his appeal not less than 28 days before the hearing in accordance with the directions given by the Registrar of Civil Appeals. Accordingly, the applicant is deemed to have waived his 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.

Our reasons for decision

6.  The Court of Appeal’s general approach in dealing with appeals in non-refoulement cases is 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, 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 is a fresh application for judicial review (see Nupur Mst, at §14(6)).

7.  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 below 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.

8.  In the present case, no such error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the decision of the Board was observed by the Judge or was pointed out by the applicant apart from the bare assertions in his grounds of appeal.

9.  In our view, the matters set out in the notice of appeal failed to identify any error on the part of the Judge and do not amount to any viable ground of appeal. The applicant’s appeal is devoid of merits. We dismiss it accordingly.