RE DIALLO AMADOU

CACV 291/2024, [2025] HKCA 69

On Appeal From [2024] HKCFI 1729

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 291 OF 2024

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO. 1355 OF 2019)

________________________

________________________

________________________

J U D G M E N T

________________________

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

1)  The appeal

1.  This is an appeal by the applicant against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge Bruno Chan (“the Judge”)  of 4 July 2024 in which he refused to grant leave to him to apply for judicial review of the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board (‘the Board’)  of 10 May 2019 (“the Board’s Decision”).

2.  This appeal was scheduled to be heard on 7 January 2025.  Despite the directions from the High Court to the applicant dated 31 October 2024 (“the Directions”), the applicant failed to lodge written submission by the stipulated time.  Accordingly by paragraph 4 of the Directions, the hearing of the appeal was vacated and the Court will deal with this appeal on the papers. 

2)  Background

3.  The applicant is a national of Mali.  He entered Hong Kong on 10 April 2016 as a visitor but he overstayed and he surrendered subsequently to the Immigration Department. He applied for non-refoulement protection on 10 June 2016[1].

4.  The basis of the applicant’s claim is that he would be harmed or killed by his former employer, Taufique, and his associates[2].

5.  The background facts have been summarised in the decision of the Judge at [2] to [5].

3)  The Director’s Decision

6.  The Director of Immigration (“the Director”)  decided against the applicant’s non-refoulement claim on 20 July 2018.  The decision covered Bill of Rights Article 2 (right to life)  risk (“BOR 2”), Bill of Rights Article 3 (torture/inhuman treatment)  risk (“BOR 3”), as well as other statutory and convention rights against torture and persecution[3] (“the Director’s Decision”).

4)  The Board’s Decision

7.  The applicant appealed against the Director’s Decision to the Board.  After a hearing held on 29 April 2019, the Board dismissed the applicant’s appeal on 10 May 2019 (that is, the Board’s Decision).

8.  The Board’s findings are summarised in the decision of the Judge at [8] to [9].

5)  Decision of the Judge

9.  The applicant filed his Form 86 and affirmation and raised various grounds to challenge the Board’s Decision. See the decision of the Judge at [10].

10.  The Judge held that the grounds raised by the applicant were all just bare and vague assertions containing a few words or phrases, without any particulars of specifics as to how they applied to the applicant’s case or how the Board erred in its decision. The Judge held that even on the factual basis of the applicant’s own case, it was a private monetary dispute without any official involvement or political element. See the decision of the Judge at [11].

6)  Grounds of appeal

11.  The applicant in the notice of appeal stated the following:-

“I want appeal to decision.”

7)  Our view

12.  We are of the view that the applicant’s appeal is without merit.  His notice of appeal merely expressed a wish to appeal without stating any grounds, let alone particulars or specifics thereof. An appeal against refusal of leave to apply for judicial review is not an occasion for reconsideration of arguments already advanced.  The Court of Appeal would only reverse the decision of the Judge if it could be demonstrated that there were errors in law, that the Judge failed to take into account relevant matters, or the decision was otherwise plainly wrong : see United Muslim Association of Hong Kong v Yusuf Yu [2018] HKCA 451 at [38] and [39].

13.  It is thus incumbent on the applicant to point out with sufficient particularity the errors allegedly committed by the Judge in assessing the Board’s Decision.  The applicant has failed to do so.

14.  We see no basis to disturb the Judge’s decision.  Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.