NAKAZIBWE JOANITA v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

CACV 90/2026, [2026] HKCA 599

On Appeal from [2026] HKCFI 152

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 90 OF 2026

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 2463 OF 2020)

________________________

_____________________

_____________________

JUDGMENT

_____________________

Hon H. Au-Yeung J (giving the Judgment of the Court):

1.  This is the applicant’s appeal against the order (“the Dismissal Order”) of Deputy High Court Judge (Non-refoulement Claims) Vincent Lung (“the Judge”) dated 26 January 2026 by which her application for leave to apply for judicial review (“the Leave Application”) against the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board (“the Board”) dated 3 December 2020 (“Board’s Decision”) was dismissed. By that decision, the Board upheld the decision of the Director of Immigration (“the Director”) rejecting the applicant’s non-refoulement claim

2.  The applicant is a national of Uganda.  The basis of her non-refoulement claim had been set out in detail in the Board’s Decision, which may be viewed online via the hyperlink contained in footnote 1 of the CALL-1 Form.  In gist, the applicant claims that if she returns home, she will be harmed or killed by her brothers-in-law.

3.  In [5] to [11] of the CALL-1 Form, the Judge gave detailed reasons for refusing the Leave Application.

4.  By a Notice of Appeal filed on 3 February 2026, the Applicant appeals against the Judge’s decision.  The Applicant contends that:

“That both state protection and internal relocation options are not available and viable. The country of origin used for deciding my claim is misleading. My life is still in danger.”

5.  This appeal was scheduled to be heard on 26 March 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 3 February 2026 (“Directions”).  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.  Having considered the documents before us, we consider that it is appropriate to deal with the applicant’s appeal on paper without an oral hearing.

6.  The general approach of this Court in dealing with appeals in non-refoulement cases has been 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, this Court 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.  This Court’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 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 at [13].

8.  In respect of the grounds of appeal, we note that the matters in those grounds had never been raised in the Form 86, the affidavit filed in support of the Form 86 or at the hearing before the Judge.  The applicant has not given any reason why she should be allowed to raise these grounds for the first time at the appeal stage, nor can we find any good reason to allow her to do so.  We therefore do not allow the applicant to rely on those grounds and we place no weight on them.

9.  In the premises, this appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs.