RE BOYE MALICK

CACV 1181/2025, [2026] HKCA 281

On Appeal From [2025] HKCFI 5789

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 1181 OF 2025

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 1938 OF 2020)

_______________

_______________

J U D G M E N T

_______________

Hon Au JA (giving the Judgment of the Court):

1.  This is the applicant’s appeal against the order of Deputy High Court Judge KW Lung (“the Judge”) dated 2 December 2025 ([2025] HKCFI 5789) (“the Leave Decision”) dismissing his application 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 7 July 2020 (“the Board’s Decision”), whereby the Board dismissed his appeal against the decision of the Director of Immigration dated 16 October 2018, refusing his non‑refoulement claim.

2.  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 [4] ‑ [10] of the Leave Decision.  The Judge also sets out in detail the grounds advanced by the applicant in support of the Leave Application and his reasons for refusing the Leave Application: see [11] ‑ [18] of the Leave Decision.  We will not repeat the details herein.

3.  By the Notice of Appeal filed on 12 December 2025, the applicant asserted:

“I want to appeal against the decision. Please review my application. The decision is unreasonable.” (sic)

4.  The applicant lodged written submissions on 13 January 2026.  In those submissions, he reiterated the procedural history of his non‑refoulement claim and requested the Court of Appeal to review his application.

5.  We heard the appeal on 2 February 2026.  We noted that the applicant has previously requested for a Wolof interpreter for his present appeal hearing.  However, so far the Court has not been able to locate a suitable interpreter for the purpose of this hearing.  At the same time, we noted that all the documents filed and lodged by the applicant in the Court below as well as this Court were written in English and the applicant, presumably understood the contents thereof.  At the hearing, the applicant also confirmed that he understood English and the questions posed to him by this Court.  He also stated that he had no further submissions to add to what have already been set out in the written submissions and all the documents including the Notice of Appeal filed and lodged in support of this appeal.

6.  In the circumstances, we are satisfied that it is appropriate and no unfairness was occasioned by conducting the appeal in English.

DISCUSSION

7.  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].

8.  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 v Director of Immigration [2018] HKCA 524 at [14(6)].

9.  Nowhere in his Notice of Appeal or submissions did the applicant identify any error committed by the Judge.  Although he claimed that the decision was unreasonable, he failed to condescend upon particulars.  Clearly, his assertions do not constitute viable grounds of appeal and must fail.  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.