Re Prempeh Joseph

CACV 741/2026, [2026] HKCA 1682

On Appeal From [2026] HKCFI 3807

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 741 OF 2026

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 1426 OF 2022)

_______________

_______________

_______________

J U D G M E N T

_______________

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

1.This is the applicant’s appeal against the order of Deputy High Court Judge (Non-refoulement Claims) Isaac Chan (“the Judge”) dated 9 July 2026 ([2026] HKCFI 3807) (“the Leave Decision”) dismissing 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 7 September 2022, whereby the Board dismissed his appeal against the decision of the Director of Immigration dated 27 March 2019, refusing his non-refoulement claim.

2.The applicant is a national of Ghana.  The basis of his non‑refoulement claim is, if refouled, he would be harmed or killed by his uncle owing to land disputes.  His 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 at [31] ‑ [147] of the Board’s Decision.  The Judge has set out his reasons for refusing the Leave Application at [6] ‑ [13] of the Leave Decision.  We will not repeat the details herein.

3.By the Notice of Appeal filed on 14 July 2026, the applicant claimed:

“… the grounds of this appeal are that the Plaintiff will face hardship if he is to return back to his home country and that the Torture Claims Appeal Board has significantly relied on the source of news which is not officially recognized, or it is simply hearsay.  They have also relied on some cases which are outdated considering the dramatic changes.  The lack of credible source of information has resulted in them making groundless speculations.” (sic)

4.In support of his appeal, the applicant also lodged written submissions on 27 July 2026.  In those submissions, he recited various case authorities on the high standards of fairness and procedural fairness without condescending upon particulars as to how they are relevant to his individual case.

5.We heard the appeal on 2 September 2026.  A Hausa interpreter was also present to provide language assistance.  During the hearing, the applicant again claimed that he could not understand the court’s Hausa interpreter, who is a Nigerian instead of a Ghanian.  The applicant insisted that Ghanian Hausa is different from Nigerian Hausa.  The court’s Hausa interpreter however asserted that Ghanian Hausa and Nigerian Hausa only differ in accent in the same way as American English differs from British English.

6.As a matter of fact, the applicant also raised similar complaints regarding the court’s Hausa interpreter during the oral hearing before the Judge: see [7(1)] of the Leave Decision.  In this respect, we agree with the observations made by the Judge at [7(3)] and [7(4)] of the Leave Decision.  In any event, it is pertinent to note that the applicant has not raised any ground of appeal regarding the court’s interpretation services in his Notice of Appeal or written submissions.  Further, at the oral hearing before this Court, the applicant could explain his stance in fluent English.  We also note that the documents filed by him in this court and the court below are all in English.  In the premises, we are satisfied that we could proceed with the hearing.

7.The applicant then confirmed to the court that he understood basic English and that he had nothing to add to his written materials.

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 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)].

10.In relation to his grounds of appeal and submissions, we see no merit in his contentions.  Nowhere in his Notice of Appeal did the applicant identify any error committed by the Judge with specific particulars.  His assertions against the Board’s Decision are general and bare allegations unsupported by reference to the facts of his case.  General assertions of fear if refouled do not constitute proper grounds of appeal: Re Saldua Dorothy Trifalgar [2022] HKCA 627 at [6].  As the Judge noted, there was no error of law or any procedural unfairness in the Board’s Decision: see [11] ‑ [12] of the Leave Decision.  There is therefore no viable ground of appeal and 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.

The applicant acting in person