Bakone Eric v. Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office

CACV 824/2026, [2026] HKCA 1810

On appeal from [2026] HKCFI 4159

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 824 OF 2026

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 404 OF 2024)

________________________

BETWEEN

________________________

_____________________

J U D G M E N T

_____________________

Hon Kwan VP (giving the Judgment of the Court):

Background

1.On 4 August 2026, Deputy High Court Judge Andrew Li refused to grant leave for the applicant to apply for judicial review against the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board (“the Board”) concerning his non‑refoulement claim[1]. The applicant filed a Notice of Appeal against the said decision on 10 August 2026.

2.The applicant is a national of Burkina Faso.  He came to Hong Kong as a visitor on 21 October 2022 and subsequently overstayed.  He lodged his non-refoulement claim on 2 December 2022 on the basis that he would be harmed or killed by the Burkinabe authorities or the jihadists if he were returned to his home country.

3.By a Notice of Decision dated 22 February 2023, the Director of Immigration (“the Director”) rejected the applicant’s non-refoulement claim.  His appeal was dismissed by the Board on 4 December 2023[2].

The judge’s decision

4.The applicant filed a Form 86 and an affirmation on 4 March 2024 to seek leave to apply for judicial review against the decision of the Board.  His leave application was dismissed by the judge on 4 August 2026.

Grounds of appeal

5.In his Notice of Appeal filed on 10 August 2026, the applicant stated the following grounds of appeal:

(1)  The court did not scrutinise his claim properly;

(2)  The court and the Board rejected his claim despite the severe problem in his home country;

(3)  If he returns to his home country, he will be killed by his enemies.

6.His contentions in his written submissions may be summarised as follows:

(1)  The judge’s decision was unreasonable;

(2)  The judge was wrong as a matter of law for not having applied the principle of irrationality to the decisions made by the Director and the Board;

(3)  The judge was wrong as a matter of law for not having applied the principle of procedural unfairness to the decision of the Director;

(4)  High standards of fairness are required in the determination of torture claims but the judge reviewed the matter lightly;

(5)  The applicant’s problems are very severe in his home country and he has submitted all the proofs but the judge has not applied greater care and disappointed the applicant.  The judge did not analyse the claims properly;

(6)  The adjudicator has failed to give sufficient chance for the applicant to arrange for relevant evidence;

(7)  The Board had significantly relied on the source of news which is not officially recognised or is simply hearsay;

(8)  The adjudicator was irrational in failing to evaluate and make finding as to whether there is a consistent pattern of gross and mass violation of human rights in his home country;

(9)  The adjudicator was irrational in failing to assess whether state protection existed in the applicant’s home country and misdirected himself as to the extended meaning of state protection;

(10)  The police in his country will not help him because he is not a political leader of the ruling party or an influential person of the state.  His enemies are involved with the ruling government.  They can kill him at any time if they find him;

(11)  The political situation in his home country does not support his life safety at this moment. 

Analysis and disposition 

7.The general principles regarding an appeal in a non‑refoulement case have been set out comprehensively by the Court of Appeal in Nupur Mst v Director of Immigration [2018] HKCA 524 at §14.

8.The applicant’s complaints against the Director and the Board’s decisions were not raised in his leave application before the Court of First Instance.  An appeal is not the occasion for an applicant of a non-refoulement claim to introduce new grounds[3].

9.In any event, his grounds and submissions in this appeal are just bare assertions without evidence in support.  The applicant has not adduced any evidence to refute the Board’s findings, which are meticulous and painstaking, and its conclusion there is not a real risk that he would face any harm should he be returned to his home country based on the claims he made.  Nor has the applicant demonstrated that the judge was wrong in finding no errors of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the Board’s decision.

10.Therefore, we found that the appeal is devoid of merit and dismiss it accordingly.

The Applicant (Appellant), acting in person

[1]  [2026] HKCFI 4159

[2]  The Board’s decision can be accessed via the following hyperlink:

https://legalref.judiciary.hk/doc/judg/html/vetted/other/en/2024/HCAL000404_2024_files/the_Board's_Decision.pdf

[3]  Re Qadir Sher [2018] HKCA 160 at §11