ALI ALI USSI v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

CACV 3/2026, [2026] HKCA 406

On Appeal From [2025] HKCFI 6269

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 3 OF 2026

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 2406 OF 2020)

_______________

_______________

_______________

J U D G M E N T

_______________

Hon Eugene Fung J (giving the Judgment of the Court):

1.  This is the applicant’s appeal against the order of Deputy High Court Judge Levy (“the Judge”) dated 23 December 2025 ([2025] HKCFI 6269) (“the Leave Decision”) refusing his application for extension of time for leave to apply for judicial review (and also 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/petition against the decision of the Director of Immigration (“the Director”) dated 24 September 2018, refusing his non‑refoulement claim other than torture risk.  The ground under torture risk was previously dismissed by the Director on 23 August 2013.

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 [3], [8]-[9] of the Leave Decision.

3.  The applicant is a national of Tanzania.  He claimed to have last arrived in Hong Kong in September 2012.  He overstayed since December 2012.  He lodged a torture claim in March 2013, and it was rejected in August 2013.  He made a non-refoulement claim other than torture risk on 30 August 2013.  The basis of his claim is that if he were to return to Tanzania, he will be harmed or killed by members of Chama Cha Mapinduzi and the police because he was an active member of an opposing party. 

4.  The Judge sets out her reasons for refusing the Leave Application: see [6]-[14] of the Leave Decision.  We will not repeat the details herein.

5.  By the Notice of Appeal filed on 2 January 2026, the applicant stated:

“There is error of law in the decision I still believe there is unfairness and there was no proper consideration of my claim. The Judge believes the Board and Director but forgets that the burden of proof is upon me.”

6.  This appeal was scheduled to be heard on 3 March 2026.  As the applicant did not lodge any written submissions, the scheduled hearing of his appeal was vacated pursuant to the directions of the Court.  We shall accordingly determine the appeal on the basis of the available documents and materials.

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.  In light of the above, it is thus incumbent on the applicant to point out the errors in the Leave Decision with sufficient particulars.

10.  However, nowhere in his Notice of Appeal has the applicant identified any error committed by the Judge with particulars.  His assertions are all general, bare and vague allegations unsupported by particulars or evidence.  The Court will not usurp the role of the Board.  Assessment of evidence, country of origin information materials, 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 are errors of law or procedural unfairness or irrationality in the decision of the Board.  No such error was demonstrated by the applicant.  Clearly, his assertions do not constitute viable grounds of appeal.  We see no basis to interfere with the Leave Decision.

11.  For the above reasons, the applicant’s appeal against the Leave Decision has no merit and is dismissed.