EL HACHIMI MOHAMED v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

CACV 555/2026, [2026] HKCA 1316

On Appeal From [2026] HKCFI 2840

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 555 OF 2026

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 1429 OF 2025)

________________________

_____________________

_____________________

JUDGMENT

_____________________

Hon Ng J (giving the Judgment of the Court):

INTRODUCTION

1.  This is the Applicant’s appeal against the order of Deputy High Court JudgeK.W. Lung (“the Judge”) dated 20 May 2026[1] (“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 6 May 2025 (“the Board’s Decision”).

BACKGROUND

2.  The Applicant is a national of Morocco.  He made a non-refoulement claim on the basis that, if refouled, he feared he would be harmed owing to (i) institutional discrimination against him as a disabled person; (ii) persecution because of his membership of the social group of human rights activists or journalists in Morocco; (iii) his persecution because of anti-government political views; (iv) arbitrary detention and torture for lengthy period before trial; (v) absence of fair trial due to his anti-government political views; and (vi) his conversion from Islam to Christianity[2].  His claim was rejected by the Director of Immigration (“the Director”) on 24 October 2017 and the appeal against the Director’s decision was rejected by the Board on 6 May 2025.  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.  

3.  The Applicant’s application for leave to apply for judicial review was refused by the Judge on 20 May 2026.  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 1 June 2026, the Applicant stated that:

“1. In the Judgment para: 6, 9 the Honourable Judge Mr. K.W. Lung has confirmed the Decision made by the TCAB and the Director’s. In this view I would like to say that observation in my claim and my fear that the TCAB failed to realized the matter at all.

2. In the Judgment para: 13, the refer case also relied on some cases which are fairly outdated considering the dramatic changes.

3. The lack of credible source of information has result in them making groundless speculations.” (sic)

5.  In the skeleton submission lodged on 10 June 2026, the applicant reiterated that his life is still in danger upon refoulement.  He also alleged that the Board and the Director failed to consider or give proper weight to relevant considerations in that the authorities would not be able to protect him and that it would be unsafe to return to his home country.  He also alleged that the Board acted outside jurisdiction, erred in law in applying non-refoulement principles and the Board’s Decision was procedurally unfair, irrational, Wednesbury unreasonable and failed to consider material evidence, changed country circumstances and proportionality.  He further alleged that the Judge applied an incorrect test for non-refoulement and treated credibility findings as conclusively determinative.

6.  We heard the appeal on 21 July 2026. The Applicant attended the hearing in person with the assistance of an Arabic interpreter.  The Applicant asked us to consider his health condition ie his disability and his religious circumstances that he had converted from Islam to Christianity. He also said the decision of the Administration and the Board was not based on evidence.

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 below will not intervene by way of judicial review unless there are errors of law, 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 submission are all general, vague and bare allegations without particulars.  They do not constitute any valid grounds of appeal against the Judge’s decision.  General assertions of fear if refouled also do not constitute proper grounds of appeal: Re Saldua Dorothy Trifalgar [2022] HKCA 627 at [6].  

10.  Furthermore, the Applicant’s contentions as to the Judge’s decision are misconceived.  The Judge merely stated the Director’s and the Board’s decisions and their findings at [6] and [9] of the CALL-1 Form.  The legal principles cited at [13] of the CALL-1 Form are plainly relevant and applicable to the Applicant’s case.  As to his complaints about the Board’s Decision, the Judge had considered and rejected them in detail at [11] to [22] of the CALL-1 Form. The Applicant has failed to identify or substantiate 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.  We see no basis to interfere with the Order.

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