RE BARROW BUBACARR

CACV 924/2025, [2026] HKCA 506

On appeal from [2025] HKCFI 4642

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 924 OF 2025

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 1760 OF 2020)

______________________

______________________

___________________

J U D G M E N T

___________________

Hon K Yeung J (giving the Judgment of the Court):

1.  This is the applicant’s appeal against the order of Deputy High Court Judge Martin Wong (“the Judge”) dated 10 October 2025 ([2025] HKCFI 4642, “the Leave Decision”) refusing his application made on 2 September 2020 out of time (but without making any application for extension of time) for leave to apply for judicial review (“the Leave Application”) against the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office (“the Board”) dated 5 December 2019 (“the Board’s Decision”), whereby the Board dismissed his appeal against the decision of the Director of Immigration (“the Director”) dated 22 July 2019 refusing his non-refoulement claim.

2.  This appeal was scheduled to be heard on 15 January 2026. Despite the directions from the Court to the applicant dated 4 December 2025 (“Directions”), the applicant failed to lodge written submission by the stipulated time. Accordingly, by [5] of the Directions, the hearing of the appeal was vacated and the Court will now deal with this appeal on paper.

3.  The applicant’s background, the basis of his claim and arguments advanced before the Board as well as the Board’s reasons for rejecting his appeal are all set out in the Board’s Decision: see [5], [8]‑[10] of the Leave Decision[1]. In short, the applicant arrived in Hong Kong via the Mainland in November 2014 as a visitor. He has overstayed since February 2015. In May 2015, he lodged his non-refoulement claim. In July 2016, he was arrested by the police for possession of a dangerous drug. In July 2017, he was arrested for theft. In January 2018, he was arrested for possession of a dangerous drug[2]. The basis of his claim is that if he were to be return to Gambia, he would be harmed or killed by members of a gang that he joined but wanted to part ways with[3].

4.  The Judge also set out in detail the grounds advanced by the applicant in support of the Leave Application and his reasons for refusing the Leave Application: see [7]‑[12] of the Leave Decision. We will not repeat the details herein.

5.  In the Notice of Appeal filed on 23 October 2025, the applicant stated in summary the following:

(a)  The Director, Adjudicator and Court failed to give sufficient weight to “such argument”;

(b)  The Director’s decision failed to give weight to state acquiescence;

(c)  The Adjudicator failed to make sufficient inquiry, and stated that the applicant had failed to provide any credible evidence to prove the material elements of his claim;

(d)  The Adjudicator failed to give the applicant sufficient chance to arrange relevant evidence;

(e)  The Director referred to country of origin information which suited his pre-conceived conclusion.

Discussion

6.  The relevant legal principles governing appeals in non‑refoulement cases are set out in Nupur Mst v Director of Immigration [2018] HKCA 524 at [14].

7.  In particular, in an appeal against refusal of leave to apply for judicial review in non-refoulement cases, the Court of Appeal will 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’s role is not to examine the decision maker’s decision afresh as if it were a fresh application for judicial review. See Nupur Mst at [14(6)].

8.  In light of the above, it is thus incumbent on the applicant to point out the errors in the Leave Decision with sufficient particulars and specifics.

9.  However, nowhere in his Notice of Appeal did the applicant identify any error committed by the Judge with specific particulars. His assertions are all general, bare and vague allegations unsupported by specific particulars or evidence. General assertions of his fear if refouled do not constitute proper grounds of appeal: Re Saldua Dorothy Trifalgar [2022] HKCA 627 at [6]. The Court will not usurp the role of the Board. Assessment of evidence, country of origin information materials, 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. No such error was demonstrated by the applicant. Clearly, his assertions do not constitute viable grounds of appeal and lack substance. We see no basis to interfere with the Leave Decision.

10.  For the above reasons, the applicant’s appeal against the Leave Decision has no merit and is dismissed.