RE ARANGO CASTANO JOHNY RICARDO

CACV 964/2025, [2026] HKCA 510

On appeal from [2025] HKCFI 5148

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 964 OF 2025

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 384 OF 2020)

___________________________

___________________________

___________________

J U D G M E N T

___________________

Hon K Yeung J (giving the Judgment of the Court):

1.  This is the applicant’s appeal against the order of Deputy High Court Judge Michael Wong (“the Judge”) dated 31 October 2025 ([2025] HKCFI 5148) (“the Leave Decision”) refusing 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 5 March 2020 (“the Board’s Decision”), whereby the Board dismissed his appeal against the decision of the Director of Immigration (“the Director”) dated 14 March 2019 refusing his non-refoulement claim.

2.  This appeal was scheduled to be heard on 15 January 2026. Despite the directions from the Court to the applicant dated 4 December 2025 (“Directions”), the applicant failed to lodge written submission by the stipulated time. Accordingly, by [4] of the Directions, the hearing of the appeal was vacated and the Court will now deal with this appeal on paper. On 13 January 2026, well past the stipulated deadline, the applicant lodged his written submission. The Court will in making this Judgment nonetheless take his written submission into account.

3.  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 [6], [15]-[20] of the Leave Decision[1].

4.  In short, the applicant claimed to have arrived in Hong Kong in May 2014 as a visitor but he has overstayed since June 2014. He surrendered to the authorities in October 2015. In November 2015, he was convicted of “Breach of Condition of Stay” and was sentenced to a suspended sentence. He was allowed to depart Hong Kong on 13 November 2015. In July 2018, he was arrested by the police for drug trafficking and illegal remaining[2]. He made a non-refoulement claim in October 2018[3]. The basis of his claim was that if he were to be returned to Colombia, he would be harmed or killed by a militant/para-military group, Los Urabenos[4].

5.  The Judge also set out in detail the grounds advanced by the applicant in support of the Leave Application and his reasons for refusing the Leave Application: see [7]-[24] of the Leave Decision. We will not repeat the details herein.

6.  In the Notice of Appeal filed on 3 November 2025, the applicant stated:

I want to appel this decision because I do not agree with the decision that has been made regarding my case. (sic)

7.  In his written submissions, the applicant made a request to re-fix his hearing date, as he wanted to tell the Court that his life was being threatened. The submission then went on to include 10 paragraphs of bare assertions, complaining how the Director/the Adjudicator were wrong in their decisions due to reasons such as failure to appreciate state acquiescence, failure to protect his right to life, failure to prevent quick disposal of cases, failure to prevent irrationality, and placing too much reliance on country of origin information. None of those bare assertions relate to any complaint against the Judge.

Discussion

8.  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].

9.  In particular, in an appeal against refusal of leave to apply for judicial review in a non-refoulement case, 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 at [14(6)].

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

11.  However, nowhere in his Notice of Appeal or written submission did the applicant identify any error committed by the Judge with specific particulars. His assertions are all general, bare and vague allegations unsupported by specific particulars or evidence. General assertions of his fear if refouled do not constitute proper grounds of appeal: Re Saldua Dorothy Trifalgar [2022] HKCA 627 at [6]. 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 and lack substance. We see no basis to interfere with the Leave Decision.

12.  For the above reasons, we refuse the applicant’s request to refix the hearing. We further dismiss the applicant’s appeal against the Leave Decision.