NALULE IRENE v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD

CACV 719/2025, [2026] HKCA 455

On appeal from [2025] HKCFI 3809

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 719 OF 2025

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 9 OF 2020)

__________________________

BETWEEN

__________________________

________________

JUDGMENT

________________

The Court:

INTRODUCTION

1.  This is the applicant’s appeal against the order of S T Poon J (“the Judge”) dated 29 August 2025[1] (“the Order”) refusing to extend time for the application to apply for leave to judicially review of the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office (“the Board”) dated 5 October 2018 (“the Board’s Decision”) whereby the Board dismissed her appeal against the decision of the Director of Immigration (“the Director”) dated 7 September 2016.

THE APPLICANT’S CLAIM AND THE JUDGE’S DECISION

2.  The applicant is a national of Uganda. 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 her unpaid debts, and/or by the Ugandan authorities who were pursuing her husband for political reasons and herself for being a lesbian. 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 [1] – [9] of the Form CALL-1 dated 29 August 2025 (“the Form CALL-1”).

3.  The applicant’s application for leave to apply for judicial review was not made within statutory timeframe of 3 months from the Board’s decision. After considering the length of the delay, making adverse findings on the reason for the delay, the merits of the intended application, and prejudice to the putative respondent and to public administration, reasons to be found in the Form CALL-1.

THE APPEAL

4.  By a notice of appeal filed on 10 September 2025, the applicant sought to appeal the Judge’s decision to this court. For the grounds of appeal, the applicant stated that (sic) “There are errors of law or procedural unfairness in the Judgement. The Assessor did not consider the state acquiescence but relied on country of origin information which I believed is mis-leading.”

5.  In the applicant’s skeleton submissions lodged on 23 December 2025, she reiterated her claim and that her life would be at risk if refouled and further stated that :-

“Both Decisions of Director of Immigration and the Board were not considered properly, especially when they decided that the risk of harm upon me was localised. I found it unreasonable and unsafe for me to relocate to any other part of Uganda for now. There is justification to assist me with non-refoulement claim protection in Hongkong. I did not believe that the authority in my country will protect me. The misleading country of origin information used to decide my claim was unfair. I could find some errors of law and procedural unfairness, failure and lack of high standard of unfairness in those decisions and assessments. As a result, I am not satisfied with those decisions hence, I applied for a judicial review for the court to overturn those decisions. I therefore appeal to the Honourable Judges to reconsider my claim and protect me and my child in Hong Kong. My son is considered a minor. By law he is supposed to be given a legal lawyer for fighting his claim. My Argument now is that my right for BOR2 is being messed up and I need a redress. I cannot go back to Uganda. I need protection through a fair Judgement and my son needs a legal adviser as a minor to get Justice.”

6.  The appeal was scheduled to be heard on 24 February 2026. The applicant attended the hearing in person with the assistance of a Luganda interpreter and confirmed that she has nothing further to add to her written submissions.

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 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.

DISCUSSION & DISPOSITION

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

10.  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.

11.  Further, we note that the applicant made a claim with her son during her non-refoulement claim process before the Immigration Department and the Board, but she did not include her son in her first instance application before the Judge. She did not raise any issue regarding her son’s claim at the hearing before the Judge. Under paragraph [10] in the Form CALL-1, the Judge also noted that the applicant has only brought the leave application for herself only. Therefore, it is improper for the applicant to raise any issues regarding her son’s claims at this stage.

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