RAHARISOA OLIVIENNE NATACHA v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

CACV 436/2025, [2026] HKCA 394

On Appeal From [2025] HKCFI 2481

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 436 OF 2025

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 3798 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 (Non-refoulement Claims) Philips Wong (“the Judge”) dated 16 June 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 20 November 2019 (“the Board’s Decision”).

BACKGROUND

2.  The Applicant is a national of Madagascar. On 29 January 2019, the Applicant lodged a non-refoulement claim on the basis that, if refouled, she would be harmed or killed by a former friend in Madagascar to whom she owed money. The Applicant’s non-refoulement claim was rejected by the Director of Immigration (“the Director”) on 28 June 2019, and the appeal against the Director’s decision was rejected by the Board on 20 November 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 16 June 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 24 June 2025, the Applicant states the following ground:

“I plead to the Judges of Court of Appeal to review my Application. Please consider my case.”

5.  In the 7-page skeleton argument filed on 16 January 2026, apart from reiterating her claim that her life was in danger owing to her unpaid debt to her former boyfriend, the Applicant essentially disputes the decisions of the Director and the Board, without advancing any substantive argument against the Judge’s decision.

6.  The appeal was heard on 27 February 2026. The Applicant attended the hearing with the assistance of a French interpreter and added that her life is at risk if she goes back and there are constant threats against her family.

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 or 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 against the Director and the Board. They do not constitute any valid grounds of appeal against the Judge’s decision.

10.  The Applicant has failed to identify or 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.