BOYE ABDOU v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD

CACV 577/2026, [2026] HKCA 1317

On Appeal From [2026] HKCFI 3045

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 577 OF 2026

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 1393 OF 2021)

________________________

_____________________

_____________________

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 Judge Michael Wong (“the Judge”) dated 27 May 2026[1] (“the Order”) refusing to grant leave to apply for judicial review of the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board (“the Board”) dated 23 September 2021 (“the Board’s Decision”).

BACKGROUND

2.  The Applicant is a national of Senegal. He made a non-refoulement claim on the basis that, if refouled, he feared he would be harmed or killed by his uncle owing to some monetary disputes.  His claim was rejected by the Director of Immigration (“the Director”) on 29 October 2018 and the appeal against the Director’s decision was rejected by the Board on 23 September 2021.  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 27 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 3 June 2026, the Applicant stated that:

“I want to appeal agains the decision the decision reached unreasonable please review my application.” (sic)

5.  In the skeleton argument lodged on 6 July 2026, the Applicant complained that the Judge was unreasonable, irrational and procedurally unfair and failed to analyse his claim properly.  He also complained that the Board failed to give him sufficient chance to arrange for relevant evidence in support of his case and that the Board failed to assess whether state protection existed and whether a consistent pattern of gross and mass violation of human rights existed in his home country.  He then reiterated that he would face hardship if refouled and that the Board had significantly relied on the source of news not being officially recognised.

6.  We heard the appeal on 21 July 2026. The Applicant attended the hearing in person with the assistance of a French interpreter. The Applicant informed us that the situation in his country is even more serious now and he needed protection by the Hong Kong Government. Further, he was married in Hong Kong to a local woman in 2025 and he had already applied for a dependent visa.

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 argument 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].  As noted by the Judge at [25] of the CALL-1 Form, since the Applicant’s claims were rejected in entirety, it was not necessary for the Board to consider the availability of state protection.  The Applicant also had ample opportunities before the Board and the Judge, both orally and in writing, to present his case.[2] There is no substance in the Applicant’s contentions and we see no basis to interfere with the Judge’s decision.

10.  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.

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