OUSSOU AUGUSTIN v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

CACV 411/2025, [2026] HKCA 176

On appeal from [2025] HKCFI 2121

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 411 OF 2025

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 140 OF 2020)

________________________

BETWEEN

_____________________

_____________________

JUDGMENT

_____________________

The Court:

Introduction

1.  This is the applicant’s appeal against the order of Deputy High Court Judge (Non-refoulement Claims) Martin Wong (“the Judge”) dated 3 June 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 11 December 2019 (“the Board’s Decision”).

Background

2.  The applicant is a national of Cote d’Ivoire. On 12 and 21 March 2019, he lodged a non-refoulement claim on the basis that, if refouled, he would be harmed or killed by government soldiers, given the chaotic political and military situation in Cote d’Ivoire. Details of the applicant’s claim have been summarized in the Board’s Decision, the hyperlink to which can be found in the CALL-1 Form.

3.  By a Notice of Decision dated 29 August 2019 (“the Director’s Decision”), the Director of Immigration (“the Director”) rejected the Applicant’s non-refoulement claim on all applicable grounds, namely: BOR 2 risk[1], BOR 3 risk[2], persecution risk[3], and risk of torture[4].

4.  The applicant appealed the Director’s Decision to the Board. The Board dismissed the Applicant’s appeal, and confirmed the Director’s Decision. Details of the Board’s reasoning and findings can be found in the Board’s Decision.

The Judge’s decision

5.  On 14 January 2020, the Applicant filed a Form 86 to apply for leave to apply for judicial review of the Board’s Decision. He did not advance any grounds for judicial review in the Form 86, nor in the supporting affidavit of the same date.

6.  The Judge gave the decision refusing to grant leave to apply for judicial review for the reasons that the Board did assess the applicant’s case as claimed, and there was no error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality found in the Board’s Decision. Details of the Judge’s reasoning and findings can be found in the CALL-1 Form.

Grounds of appeal

7.  In the Notice of Appeal filed on 16 June 2025, the applicant states that he disagrees with the decisions of the Director and the Board as there is error of law or procedural unfairness in the refusal or dismissal of his application for judicial review.

8.  The applicant has failed to lodge written submissions in support of his appeal in accordance with the directions given by the Registrar of Civil Appeals on 1 December 2025. Accordingly, he is deemed to have waived the right to have an oral hearing of his appeal and elected to have his appeal disposed of on paper. Having considered the documents before us, we consider that it is appropriate to deal with the applicant’s appeal on paper without an oral hearing.

Legal Principles

9.  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: Nupur Mst v Director of Immigration [2018] HKCA 524, at §14(6).

10.  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

11.  The complaints raised in the applicant’s Notice of Appeal are mere general and bald assertions regarding the decisions of the Judge, the Director and the Board without explanations, particulars or reasons in support. They do not constitute any valid grounds of appeal against the Judge’s decision.

12.  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. Nor is there any error of law or procedural unfairness or irrationality in the decision of the Board in the present case.

13.  The applicant’s appeal has no merit whatsoever, we dismiss it accordingly.