SANYANG YA YA v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

CACV 841/2025, [2026] HKCA 1497

On Appeal From [2025] HKCFI 4230

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 841 OF 2025

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 1248 OF 2020)

_____________________

_____________________

_____________________

JUDGMENT

_____________________

The Court:

INTRODUCTION

1.  This is the Applicant’s appeal against the order of DHCJ K.W. Lung (“the Judge”) dated 26 September 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 10 June 2020 (“the Board’s Decision”).  

BACKGROUND

2.  The Applicant is a national of Gambia.  The Applicant previously lodged a non-refoulement claim on the basis that, if refouled, he would be harmed or killed by his uncle due to a monetary dispute.  The Applicant’s claim was rejected by the Director of Immigration (“the Director”) on 5 November 2018, and the appeal against the Director’s decision was rejected by the Board on 10 June 2020.  Details of the Applicant’s claim and the Board’s reasons for rejecting the Applicant’s appeal can be found in the Board’s Decision, the hyperlink to which can be found in the CALL-1 Form dated 26 September 2025.

3.  The Applicant’s application for leave to apply for judicial review was refused by the Judge on 26 September 2025.  Details of the Judge’s reasons for refusing to grant leave can be found in the CALL-1 Form.

GROUNDS OF APPEAL

4.  In the Notice of Appeal filed on 6 October 2025, the Applicant states the following that:

“The Judgement is unreasonnable I want to appeal agains the decision at court of appeal – please review my Application.” (sic)

5.  In his skeleton argument filed on 9 July 2026, apart from reiterating his non-refoulement claim, the Applicant essentially argues that:

(1)  He had already provided all the necessary information to prove his claim but it was still rejected by the Director and his appeal was dismissed by the Board.

(2)  The decisions of the Director and the Board were unreasonable.

6.  The appeal was heard on 18 August 2026.  The Applicant attended the hearing in person with the assistance of a Gambia interpreter.  He added that he was battling with health issues and he was undergoing treatment in hospitals in Hong Kong.

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.  The matters raised in the Applicant’s Notice of Appeal and skeleton argument are all general allegations without particulars.  They do not constitute any valid grounds of appeal against the Judge’s decision.

10.  The Applicant has failed to identify or show any error in the Judge’s decision refusing to grant leave to apply for judicial review, or raise any viable ground of appeal against the Order. 

11.  The Applicant’s appeal has no merit, and is dismissed.