RORADURI ANARE v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

CACV 222/2025, [2025] HKCA 905

On Appeal From [2025] HKCFI 1386

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 222 OF 2025

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO. 3831 OF 2019)

________________________

________________________

________________________

J U D G M E N T

________________________

Hon Cheng J (giving the Judgment of the Court):

1)  The appeal

1.  This is an appeal by the applicant against the Judgment of Deputy High Court Judge Levy of 16 April 2025 in which she refused to grant leave to him to apply for judicial review.

2)  Background

2.  The applicant is a national of Fiji.  He last arrived in Hong Kong in March 2013 and was allowed to stay as a visitor until April 2013. The applicant’s limit of stay was exceeded and he subsequently surrendered to the Immigration Department in April 2013. He made a total of 3 written representations for non-refoulement in April 2013, March 2014 and April 2017[1]. 

3.  The basis of the applicant’s claim is that he would be harmed or killed by a high-ranking military officer if he returned since he had an affair with the officer’s wife[2].

4.  The background facts have been summarised in the Board’s decision at [5] to [30].

3)  The Director’s Decision

5.  The Director of Immigration (‘the Director’)  decided against the applicant’s non-refoulement claim on 5 September 2018.  The decision covered Bill of Rights Article 3 (torture/inhuman treatment)  risk, Bill of Rights Article 2 (right to life)  risk as well as other statutory and convention rights against torture and persecution[3] (‘the Director’s Decision’).

4)  The Board’s Decision

6.  The applicant appealed/petitioned[4] against the Director’s Decision to the Torture Claims Appeal Board (‘the Board’).  An oral hearing was held on 24 September 2019.  By a decision dated 5 December 2019, the Board dismissed the appeal/petition (‘the Board’s Decision’).

7.  The Board’s finding is summarised in the Judgment at [6] to [7].

5)  Decision of the Judge

8.  The applicant filed his Form 86 and supporting affirmation on 23 September 2019[5]. No proper grounds to challenge the Board’s Decision were raised[6].

9.  The Judge held that he agreed with the Board in that although the Board accepted the applicant’s account of events, there was no evidence to show that the officer had made any real attempt to locate the applicant. The applicant’s fears were mere speculation and far-fetched. State protection was available and internal relocation was possible[7].  

6)  Grounds of appeal

10.  The applicant in the notice of appeal stated the following :

‘ And further take notice that the grounds of this appeal are that 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.’

11.  The appeal was listed for hearing at 10:00am on 17^th September 2025, but by 10:47am, the applicant had not appeared in court. We therefore indicated that we would consider the appeal on the basis of the written materials submitted.

7)  Our view

12.  We are of the view that the applicant’s appeal is without merit.  The applicant provided no reasonably arguable grounds for judicial review.  An appeal against the refusal to grant leave for judicial review is not an occasion for the applicant to regurgitate arguments already advanced.  The Court of Appeal would only reverse the decision of the Judge if it could be demonstrated that there were errors in law, that the Judge failed to take into account relevant matters, or the decision was otherwise plainly wrong : see United Muslim Association of Hong Kong v Yusuf Yu [2018] HKCA 451 at [38] and [39].

13.  It is thus incumbent on the applicant to point out with sufficient particularity the errors allegedly committed by the Judge in assessing the Board’s Decision. None of the arguments or matters raised by the applicant shows the Judge has made any error of law.   

14.  In his written submissions, the applicant reiterated general statements of law and bare assertions without any evidence in support.  He did not explain how those allegations related to his case. 

15.  We see no basis to disturb the Judgment.  Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.