Re Tualufo Joao Francisco

CACV 14/2025, [2025] HKCA 576

On Appeal From [2024] HKCFI 3674

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 14 OF 2025

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO. 1836 OF 2019)

________________________

________________________

________________________

J U D G M E N T

________________________

Hon Cheung JA (giving the Judgment of the Court)  :

1)  The appeal

1.This is an appeal by the applicant against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge Reuden Lai of 27 December 2024 in which he refused to grant leave to the applicant to apply for judicial review against the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board (‘the Board’)  dated 10 June 2019.

2.Despite the directions of the Registrar of Civil Appeals dated 22 April 2025, the applicant failed to lodge the skeleton argument by the stipulated time.  Accordingly, the Court would deal with this appeal on paper based on the documents available. 

2)  Factual background

3.The applicant is a national of Mozambique.  He arrived in Hong Kong with his passport in January 2018 but he overstayed and was subsequently arrested.  He made a non-refoulement claim by written signification on 21 January 2018[1].

4.The basis of the applicant’s claim is that if he returns, he would be harmed or killed by members of a political party (Frelimo)  in Mozambique[2]. 

5.The background facts have been summarized in the decision of the Judge at [2] to [7].

3)  The Director’s Decisions

6.The Director of Immigration (‘the Director’)  decided against the applicant’s non-refoulement claim on 11 September 2018.  The decision covered Bill of Rights Article 3 (torture/inhuman treatment)  risk (‘BOR 3’), Bill of Rights Article 2 (right to life)  risk (‘BOR 2’)  as well as other statutory and convention rights against torture and persecution[3] (‘the Director’s Decision’).

4)  The Board’s Decision

7.The applicant appealed against the Director’s Decision to the Torture Claims Appeal Board (‘the Board’).  After a hearing held on 28 February 2019, the Board dismissed the applicant’s appeal on 10 June 2019 (‘the Board’s Decision’). 

8.The Board’s reasoning and decision have been summarized in the decision of the Judge at [19]-[23].

5)  Decision of the Judge

9.The applicant filed his Form 86 supported with an affidavit but he did not provide grounds for his intended judicial review.  No particulars were provided as to how the Board erred in its decision. 

10.The Judge held that the Board found that the applicant did not actually hold any subjective fear of returning to Mozambique.  The Board found that the applicant had failed to prove his entitlement to non-refoulement under all four applicable grounds.  Fact-finding was exclusively within the province of the Board.  The Judge did not detect any error of law or procedural unfairness in the Board’s Decision.  The proposed judicial review had no prospect of success[4].

6)  Grounds of appeal

11.The applicant in the notice of appeal stated the following :

‘ Appealing on the grounds that my life is in danger if I will be sent back to my country. The government has killed my father on this ground I came to Hong Kong for my safety.’

7)  Our view

12.We are of the view that the applicant’s case consists of bare allegations without particulars or specifics.  The applicant’s appeal is without merits.  The applicant provided no reasonably arguable grounds for judicial review.  An appeal against refusal of leave for judicial review is not an occasion for the applicant to regurgitate arguments already advanced.  The Court of Appeal would only reverse the decision of the Judge if it could be demonstrated that there were errors in law, that the Judge failed to take into account relevant matters, or the decision was otherwise plainly wrong : see United Muslim Association of Hong Kong v Yusuf Yu [2018] HKCA 451 at [38] and [39].

13.It is thus incumbent on the applicant to point out with sufficient particularity the errors allegedly committed by the Judge in assessing the Board’s Decision.

14.We see no basis to disturb the Judge’s Decision. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.

Applicant, unrepresented, acting in person