Harrison William Alias Appiah William v. Torture Claims Appeal Board

HCAL 307/2021

[2026] HKCFI 5317

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST NO 307 OF 2021

BETWEEN

Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review

NOTIFICATION of the Judge’s decision (Ord 53 r 3)

Following:

	consideration of the documents only;            or
	consideration of the documents and oral submissions by the Applicant in open court / the Applicant being absent in open court;

Order by Deputy High Court Judge Bruno Chan:

Leave to apply for judicial review be refused.

Observations for the Applicant:

1.The Applicant is a 47-year-old national of both Liberia and Ghana who last arrived in Hong Kong on 10 May 2005 as a visitor under his Ghanian passport and with permission to remain as such up to 24 May 2005 when he did not depart and instead overstayed, and was arrested by police some 16 months later on 29 September 2006. After he was referred to the Immigration Department for investigation, he raised a torture claim on the bases that if he returned to Liberia or Ghana he would be harmed or killed by some rebel group or the Ebola disease in Liberia and/or by the next of kin of his foster father in Ghana over their inheritance dispute within his foster family, and after his torture claim was rejected, he then sought non-refoulement protection on the same bases. He was subsequently released on recognizance pending the determination of his claim.

2.The Applicant was born and raised in Liberia where his father was a member of the then ruling political party National Democratic Party of Liberia (“NDPL”) but was subsequently killed by the rebel group in the early 1990s which revolted against the Liberian government, and later his mother and siblings were also killed by some mobs in some robbery attempt in their home in Liberia.

3.As a result and with no family left in Liberia, the Applicant in 1993 at the age of 15 fled to Ghana where he was adopted by his foster father Appiah and subsequently also assumed the family name of his foster father, and after leaving school he worked as a carpenter in Accra, Ghana to make his living.

4.After his foster father passed away in 1996, his foster father’s brother Aseidu claimed to be the next of kin entitled to the house of his foster father and threatened the Applicant and his foster mother not to stand in his way or else he would kill both of them.

5.After several occasions of being attacked by unknown men whom he suspected to be sent by Aseidu to kill him, the Applicant became fearful for his life and departed Ghana on 16 March 2005 for Hong Kong, during which he also left to visit China, and on his second trip to Hong Kong in May 2005, he subsequently overstayed and was arrested by police some 16 months later, whereupon he raised his torture claim to the Immigration Department, and after it was rejected he then sought non-refoulement protection, for which he completed a Supplementary Claim Form (“SCF”) on 11 July 2018 and attended screening interview before the Immigration Department with legal representation from the Duty Lawyer Service (“DLS”).

6.By a Notice of Decision dated 24 August 2018, the Director of Immigration (“Director”) rejected the Applicant’s claim on all the remaining applicable grounds other than torture risk including risk of his absolute or non-derogable rights under the Hong Kong Bill of Rights Ordinance, Cap 383 (“HKBOR”) being violated including right to life under Article 2 (“BOR 2 Risk”), risk of torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment under Article 3 of HKBOR (“BOR 3 Risk”), and risk of persecution with reference to the non-refoulement principle under Article 33 of the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees (“Persecution Risk”).

7.In his decision, the Director took into account of all the relevant circumstances of the Applicant’s claim and assessed the level of risk that he feared would materialize upon his return to Liberia or Ghana as low due to the low intensity and frequency of past ill-treatment from the rebel group in Liberia or his foster father’s next of kin Aseidu over their inheritance dispute, that it is not accepted that the rebel group which killed his father in the early 1990s when the Applicant was just a teenager and if even still existed would have any adverse interest in him after all these years since he left Liberia in 1993, nor similarly is there any evidence of any intention of Aseidu to seriously harm or kill him or any reason to do so given that the Applicant left Ghana years ago in 2005 without making any claim over the estate of his foster father all these years, that in any event in the absence of any official involvement in either Liberia or Ghana that state or police protection would be available to the Applicant if resorted to, and that reliable and objective Country of Origin Information (“COI”) show that reasonable internal relocation alternatives are available in both Liberia and Ghana with large populations spread across vast territories that it would not be unduly harsh for the Applicant as an able-bodied adult with working experience to move to other areas of either countries away from his home districts in large cities where it would be difficult if not impossible for anyone to locate him.

8.On 3 September 2018, the Applicant lodged an appeal to the Torture Claims Appeal Board (“Board”) against the Director’s decision, and for which he attended an oral hearing on 11 September 2020 with his lawyer from DLS before the Board during which he gave evidence and answered questions raised of his claim by the Adjudicator for the Board and also with submissions made on his behalf by his lawyer. On 22 February 2021, his appeal was dismissed by the Board which also confirmed the Director’s decision.

9.In its decision[1], the Board found no risk of or basis for the Applicant who entered Hong Kong from Ghana and on his Ghanian passport to be refouled to Liberia and hence no reason for the Board to assess any risk that he may face from either the rebel group or the Ebola disease if returned to Liberia of which he himself had confirmed to the Board that he has no intention to do so, as for his claimed risk in Ghana that the Board also found no evidence of any real intention or reason for his foster father’s next of kin Aseidu to still have any adverse interest in the Applicant after all these years since he left the country in 2005 over what was essentially a private personal dispute between just the 2 of them only without any official involvement that state or police protection would be available to the Applicant upon his return to Ghana if resorted to as well as reasonable internal relocation alternatives for him to move safely to other parts of the country away from his home district without any risk of being located by Aseidu or anyone else that his claim for non-refoulement protection failed on all applicable grounds.

10.On 9 March 2021, the Applicant filed his Form 86 for leave to apply for judicial review of the Board’s decision, but no ground for seeking relief was given in his Form or his supporting affirmation of the same date to which he just attached a copy of the decision but without putting forth any proper ground for his intended challenge, nor did he request any oral hearing for his application. As such, and in the absence of any error of law or irrationality or procedural unfairness in his process before the Board or in its decision being clearly and properly identified by the Applicant, I do not find any reasonably arguable basis for his intended challenge of the Board’s decision.

11.As has been repeatedly emphasized by the Court of Appeal, judicial review does not operate as a rehearing of a non-refoulement claim when the proper occasion for the Applicant to present and articulate his claim is in the screening process and interview before the Immigration Department and in the process before the Board where the evaluation of the risk of harm is primarily a matter for the Director and the Board as they are entitled to make such evaluation based on the evidence available to them that the court will not usurp their role as primary decision makers in the absence of any legal error or procedural unfairness or irrationality in their decisions being clearly and properly identified by the Applicant, as judicial review is not an avenue for revisiting the assessment by them in the hope that the court may consider the matter afresh: Re Lakhwinder Singh [2018] HKCA 246; Re Daljit Singh [2018] HKCA 328; Re Mudannayakalage Chaminda Pushpa Kumara [2018] HKCA 400; and Nupur Mst v Director of Immigration [2018] HKCA 524.

12.In the Applicant’s case, the Board rejected his claim for the thorough and detailed analysis and reasoning set out in its decision with the benefit of hearing him in his oral evidence and his answers to questions raised of his claim as well as submissions made by his lawyer, and in the absence of any error of law or procedural unfairness in his process before the Board or in its decision being clearly and properly identified by the Applicant, I do not find any reasonably arguable basis to challenge the finding of the Board.

13.Furthermore, the fact is that it has also been established by both the Director and the Board in their respective decisions that the risks of harm in his claim even if real are localized ones and that it is not unreasonable or unsafe for him to relocate to other parts of either Liberia or Ghana, there is simply no justification to afford him with non-refoulement protection in Hong Kong: see TK v Jenkins & Anor [2013] 1 HKC 526.

14.Having considered the decisions of both the Director and the Board with rigorous examination and anxious scrutiny, I do not find any error of law or procedural unfairness in either of them, nor any failure on their part to apply high standards of fairness in their consideration and assessment of the Applicant’s claim.

15.In the premises, as I am for the given reasons not satisfied that there is any prospect of success in the Applicant’s intended application for judicial review, I therefore refuse to grant leave and accordingly dismiss his application.

Dated the 22^nd day of September 2026

Where leave to apply has been granted, Applicants and their legal advisers are reminded of their obligation to reconsider the merits of their application in the light of the Respondent’s evidence

Form CALL-1