BACHIROU ADAMOU v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

CACV 687/2025, [2026] HKCA 454

On Appeal From [2025] HKCFI 3137

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 687 OF 2025

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 3100 OF 2019)

________________________

BETWEEN

_____________________

_____________________

JUDGMENT

_____________________

The Court:

INTRODUCTION

1.  This is the Applicant’s appeal against the order of Deputy High Court Judge KW Lung (“the Judge”) dated 26 August 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 24 September 2019 (“the Board’s Decision”).

BACKGROUND

2.  The Applicant is a national of Nigeria. On 3 February 2017, the Applicant lodged a non-refoulement claim on the basis that, if refouled, he would be harmed or killed by members of Boko Haram due to his refusal to join them.[1] The Applicant’s non-refoulement claim was rejected by the Director of Immigration (“the Director”) on 30 October 2018, and his appeal against the Director’s decision was rejected by the Board on 24 September 2019. 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 August 2025.[2]

3.  The Applicant’s application for leave to apply for judicial review was refused by the Judge on 26 August 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 his Notice of Appeal filed on 3 September 2025, the Applicant states that “I plead to the court of appeal to review my application, its shock that the Judge dismissed my case. My claims is real.” (sic)

5.  In the written submissions lodged on 15 January 2026, apart from reiterating his personal background and the chronology of events in relation to his non-refoulement claim, the Applicant essentially argues that:

(1) He was shocked that his appeal was dismissed by the Board despite he gave all the information in his position to prove and support his claim.

(2) He was surprised that the Court of First Instance rejected his leave application.

(3) He is pleading to the Court of Appeal to review his application.

LEGAL PRINCIPLES

6.  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)).

7.  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

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

9.  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.

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