SALUM NAWAL HAMID v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

CACV 962/2025, [2026] HKCA 195

On Appeal From [2025] HKCFI 4906

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 962 OF 2025

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 1024 OF 2020)

________________________

________________________

________________________

J U D G M E N T

________________________

Hon G Lam JA (giving the Judgment of the Court):

Introduction

1.  This is an appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge Levy (“Judge”)  on 27 October 2025 dismissing the application for leave to apply for judicial review against the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board/adjudicator of the Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office (“Board”)  dated 15 May 2020.  In that decision, the Board upheld the decision of the Director of Immigration (“Director”)  dated 21 August 2018 rejecting the applicant’s non-refoulement claim.

Background

2.  The applicant is a national of Tanzania born in 1991 and her claim was made on the basis that if she returned to Tanzania, her aunt and uncle would harm or kill her due to her conversion from Islam to Christianity.  Details of the applicant’s background, the basis of her claim and the arguments advanced before the Board as well as the Board’s reasons for rejecting his appeal have all been set out in the Board’s decision: see [1] of the Form CALL-1.  The Judge has set out the grounds advanced by the applicant in support of the application for leave to apply for judicial review and her reasons for refusing leave: see [5] – [8] of the Form CALL-1.  We shall not repeat them here.

Appeal to this Court

3.  On 3 November 2025, the applicant filed her Notice of Appeal against the Judge’s decision.  Her stated ground of appeal was, essentially, that she wants to appeal the judgment for the court to review her application.

4.  The applicant has lodged written submissions in which she stated that her life was still in danger and that the judgment was unreasonable.

5.  At the hearing, the applicant stated that she had nothing further to add.

Discussion

6.  In assessing the merits of the appeal, we shall have regard to the legal principles which this Court has adopted in dealing with appeals in non-refoulement cases: see Nupur Mst v Director of Immigration [2018] HKCA 524 at [14]; Re Md Shohel Sheak [2018] HKCA 714 at [13]; and Re Limbu Birkhaman [2019] HKCA 50 at [11].  In particular, the role of the Court in a judicial review is not to provide a further avenue of appeal.  The Court 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.  In the determination of an appeal against the refusal of leave by the Court of First Instance, 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.  It is not the role of this Court to examine the decision of the Board afresh as if the appeal were a fresh application for judicial review.

7.  In the present case, the Board found that there was no real risk of harm upon refoulement as alleged, because it found the applicant was not a witness of truth and had fabricated her claim in relation to her religious conversion, resulting in the Board rejecting her evidence, both individually and cumulatively, in their entirety.  These are findings of fact open to the Board based on the evidence it received and for the reasons it gave. The applicant has failed to show any reasonably arguable public law error in relation to the Board’s decision.

8.  Equally, the applicant has not been able to demonstrate any error in the decision of the Judge or advance any viable ground of appeal against the Judge’s decision.  We are not satisfied that there is any error in the Judge’s decision.

9.  The applicant’s appeal is accordingly dismissed.