RAVELOMANANTSOA HAJATIANA HOLISOA v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

CACV 670/2025, [2026] HKCA 395

On Appeal From [2025] HKCFI 3330

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 670 OF 2025

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 3209 OF 2019)

________________________

_____________________

_______________

J U D G M E N T

_______________

The Court:

INTRODUCTION

1.  This is the Applicant’s appeal against the order of DHCJ K.W. Lung (“the Judge”) dated 21 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 18 October 2019 (“the Board’s Decision”).

BACKGROUND

2.  The Applicant is a national of Malagasy (now part of Madagascar).  The Applicant lodged a non-refoulement claim on the basis that unknown persons tried but failed to kidnap his son, and unknown people lurked outside his house.  No one had directly subjected him to violence or directly threatened him but someone was after him, and he assumed that that “someone” was one or more of his debtors or creditors.  The Applicant’s non-refoulement claim was rejected by the Director of Immigration (“the Director”), and the appeal against the Director’s decision was rejected by the Board on 18 October 2019.  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 21 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 2 September 2025, the Applicant states the following ground:

“THE HIGH COURT DID NOT CONSIDER MY J.R. ADJUDICATOR DID NOT GIVE ME CORRECT DECISION. HIS DECISION IS FULL OF WRONG. PLEASE GRANT MY LEAVE.”

5.  In the 4-page skeleton argument filed on 21 January 2026, apart from asserting his life was not safe, the Applicant essentially disagrees with the Judge’s decision as wrong in law, procedurally unfair and unreasonable.

6.  The appeal was heard on 27 February 2026.  The Applicant attended the hearing with the assistance of a French interpreter and added that he did not feel safe to go back.

LEGAL PRINCIPLES

7.  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)).

8.  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, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the decision of the Board: Re Kartini [2019] HKCA 1022.  

DISCUSSION & DISPOSITION

9.  The matters raised in the Applicant’s Notice of Appeal and skeleton argument are merely bare allegations without any meaningful particulars.  They do not constitute any valid grounds of appeal against the Judge’s decision.

10.  The Applicant has failed to identify and substantiate 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. 

11.  The Applicant’s appeal has no merit, and is dismissed.