KASUJJA MOSES v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

CACV 200/2026, [2026] HKCA 968

On Appeal From [2026] HKCFI 719

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 200 OF 2026

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO. 2475 OF 2020)

____________________

____________________

________________

J U D G M E N T

________________

DHCJ Yuen (giving the Judgment of the Court):

1.  This is the Applicant’s appeal against the order of Deputy High Court Judge (Non-Refoulement Claims) Vincent Lung (“Judge”) dated 27 February 2026 by which his application for leave to apply for judicial review (“Leave Application”) against the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board (“Board”) dated 11 November 2020 (“Board’s Decision”) was dismissed.  By that decision, the Board upheld the decision of the Director of Immigration (“Director”) rejecting the Applicant’s non-refoulement claim.

2.  The Applicant is a national of Uganda.  The basis of his non-refoulement claim had been set out in detail in the Board’s Decision, which may be viewed online via the hyperlink contained in [3] of the CALL-1 Form.  In gist, the Applicant claims that if he returns home, he will be harmed or killed by his 2 step-brothers because they had a land dispute with him.

3.  In [7] to [12] of the CALL-1 Form, the Judge gave detailed reasons for refusing the Leave Application.

4.  By a Notice of Appeal filed on 5 March 2026, the Applicant appeals against the Judge’s decision.  The Applicant contends:

“…the Plaintiff will face hardship if he is to return back to his home country and that the Torture Claims Appeal Board has significantly relied on the source of news which is not officially recognized, or it is simply hearsay. They have also relied on some cases which are outdated considering the dramatic changes. The lack of credible source of information has resulted in them making groundless speculations.”

5.  This appeal was scheduled to be heard on 23 April 2026.  The Applicant has failed to lodge any skeleton argument in support of his appeal in accordance with the directions given by the Registrar of Civil Appeals on 5 March 2026.  Accordingly, the Applicant is deemed to have waived his right to have an oral hearing of the appeal and elected to have the 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.

6.  The general approach of this Court in dealing with appeals in non-refoulement cases has been set out in Nupur Mst v Director of Immigration [2018] HKCA 524 at [14].  In particular, in an appeal against refusal of leave to apply for judicial review in non-refoulement cases, this Court 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.  This Court’s role is not to examine the Board’s decision afresh as if it is a fresh application for judicial review (see Nupur Mst at [14(6)]).

7.  Further, 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 is an error of law or procedural unfairness or irrationality in the decision of the Board: Re Kartini [2019] HKCA 1022 at [13].

8.  In the Notice of Appeal, the Applicant has only identified errors allegedly made by the Board, which are unrelated to the Judge’s reasons for dismissing his Leave Application.  He has therefore failed to advance any viable ground of appeal.

9.  In the premises, this appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs.