MASSAWE BLANCA AVIT v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

CACV 607/2025, [2026] HKCA 786

On appeal from [2025] HKCFI 2891

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 607 OF 2025

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 3170 OF 2019)

__________________________

__________________________

________________

JUDGMENT

________________

The Court:

INTRODUCTION

1.  This is the applicant’s appeal against the judgment and the order of Deputy High Court Judge K W Lung (“the Judge”) dated 30 July 2025^[1](“the Judgment” and “the Order” respectively) 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 11 October 2019 (“the Board’s Decision”) whereby the Board dismissed her appeal against the decision of the Director of Immigration (“the Director”) dated 28 November 2018 (“the Director’s Decision”).

BACKGROUND

2.  The applicant is a national of Tanzania.  She lodged a non-refoulement claim with the Immigration Department on the basis that, if refouled, she would be harmed or killed by her creditor over an unpaid debt.  The applicant’s non-refoulement claim was rejected by the Director, and the appeal against it was rejected by the Board.  A summary of the applicant’s background and her process before the Director and the Board can be found under paragraphs [7] – [10] of the Judgment.

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 Judgment.

GROUNDS OF APPEAL

4.  By a notice of appeal filed on 14 August 2025, the applicant sought to appeal the Judge’s decision to this court.  For the grounds of appeal, the applicant stated that (sic) “The will kill me if I go Tanzania. I don’t want to go back Tanzania because I disapeared for longtime and now I have a baby. Is even more dangerous for me. Kiddnaping is main issue in my country now. I will provide Evidence if they ask me which evidence I need to provide. And I don’t have any money to go back to pay them to get the little of the hand I have in bank.  I want to appeal because (1) there is misunderstood between me and the person help me to write English. (2) I appeal too because I fear life of my daughter to if I go back to Tanzania.”

5.  The appeal was scheduled to be heard on 24 February 2026. The applicant has failed to lodge skeleton argument in support of her appeal in accordance with the directions given by the Registrar of Civil Appeals on 2 January 2026.  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.  The applicant was informed of the same by the court’s letter dated 27 January 2026.

6.  The applicant only lodged her skeleton submissions on 22 January 2026, which we will consider the same out of caution.  In the submissions, she reiterated her claim and that her life would be at risk if refouled, and her arguments can be summarised as follows :-

(1)     There were errors of law in the assessment of her claim;

(2)     Her persecution risk and BOR 2 risk were not given consideration;

(3)     The Assessors relied on misleading country of origin information when assessing her claim.

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

DISCUSSION & DISPOSITION

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 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.

10.  In the present case, the Judge found no error of law or procedural unfairness or irrationality in the decision of the Board.  

11.  It is incumbent on the applicant to point out the Judge's errors with sufficient particulars and specifics.  In our view, the matters set out in the applicant’s notice of appeal and written submissions failed to identify 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

^[1] [2025] HKCFI 2891