VONTADE QUENETE AGUSTINHO v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

CACV 676/2025, [2026] HKCA 143

On Appeal From [2025] HKCFI 3150

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 676 OF 2025

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 910 OF 2020)

________________________

_____________________

________________________

JUDGMENT

________________________

The Court:

INTRODUCTION

1.  This is the Applicant’s appeal against the order of DHCJ Val Chow (“the Judge”) dated 1 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 1 April 2020 (“the Board’s Decision”).  

BACKGROUND

2.  The Applicant is a national of Mozambique. The Applicant lodged a non-refoulement claim.  His claim was put on the basis that, if refouled, he would be harmed or killed by a loan shark because of his failure to repay a loan.  The Applicant’s non-refoulement claim was rejected by the Director of Immigration (“the Director”) on24 October 2018, and the appeal against the Director’s decision was rejected by the Board on 1 April 2020.  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 1 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 the Notice of Appeal filed on 1 September 2025, the Applicant states the following:

(1)     The Director failed to appreciate state acquiescence.

(2)     The Director, the Board and the Court failed to give weight to such argument (state acquiescence).

(3)     The Board failed to make sufficient enquiry before making its decision.

(4)     The Director unfairly interpreted country of origin information to support his preconceived conclusion.

(5)     The gravity of the Applicant’s circumstances has not been weighed by the Director and the Board when considering the Applicant’s non-refoulement claim.

5.  In the 3-page written submissions filed on 19 December 2025, the Applicant recited a number of cases and made generic submissions on the general principles of law relating to non-refoulement claims.

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 below 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 not directed against the Judge and are general allegations without particulars.  They do not constitute any valid grounds of appeal against the Order.

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.