RE AGBEMAVOR MAWUTOR JOYCE

CACV 492/2026, [2026] HKCA 1189 On appeal from [2026] HKCFI 2477 [citation]

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL CIVIL APPEAL NO 492 OF 2026 (ON APPEAL FROM HCAL 717/2021) --------------------------------------------- RE:

AGBEMAVOR MAWUTOR JOYCE Applicant --------------------------------------------- Before: Hon Barma JA and Mimmie Chan J in Court Date of Hearing: 2 July 2026 Date of Judgment: 16 July 2026 _______

J U D G M E N T _______ Hon Barma JA (giving the Judgment of the Court): 1. This is an appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge To (“the Judge”) given on 30 April 2026 [1] (“the Leave Decision”) refusing to grant leave for the applicant to apply for judicial review. The intended judicial review was against the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board/adjudicator of the Non-Refoulement Claims Petition Office (“the Board”) dated 29 April 2021 (“the Board’s Decision”) dismissing the applicant’s appeal against the decision of the Director of Immigration dated 20 September 2019 rejecting the applicant’s non-refoulement claim.

2. The applicant’s background, the basis of her claim and the Board’s reasons in reaching the Board’s Decision have been set out therein [2] as well as by the Judge in the Leave Decision at [3]-[7], which will not be repeated.

3. After considering the documents filed by the applicant as well as the oral submissions she made at the hearing of the leave application, the Judge dismissed the application for the reasons stated at [9]-[15] of the Leave Decision. Appeal to this court 4. In a Notice of Appeal dated 13 May 2026, the applicant stated inter alia that she would face persecution should she be refouled, and that there would not be available to her any adequate state protection or options of internal relocation.

5. By written submissions dated 15 June 2026, the applicant repeated the factual background to her claim and emphasised her alleged fear of being “persecuted” by “reason of [her] faith and religion”.

6. We heard the appeal on 2 July 2026, at which the applicant appeared in person. The applicant stated that she had nothing to add to the matters already set out in the documents filed with the court. Discussion 7. As this court has often stated, an appeal to the Court of Appeal is not a fresh application for judicial review. It is necessary to identify some error on the part of the judge that would justify this court in intervening: see Nupur Mst v Director of Immigration [2018] HKCA 524 at [14]. The court 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. An appeal is not the occasion for regurgitating arguments advanced and rejected by the judge or for running arguments which could and should have been raised but were not raised before the judge. In the determination of an appeal, the Court of Appeal focuses on the decision of the judge and the court will only reverse that decision if an appellant could demonstrate that the judge made errors of law or failed to take account of relevant matters already placed before the court or was otherwise plainly wrong.

8. The applicant has failed to identify any error on the part of the Judge and thus failed to raise any viable ground of appeal. The points advanced by the applicant were bare assertions unsupported by particulars or evidence. General assertions of fear if refouled do not constitute proper grounds of appeal: Re Saldua Dorothy Trifalgar [2022] HKCA 627 at [6].

9. In the present case, the Board found on the evidence that the risk of harm to the applicant at the hands of her stepfather by reason of her religion (or otherwise) was merely a remote possibility. In any event, the Board found that there were suitable options of internal relocation available to the applicant in order to minimise the risk of harm, if any. These were factual findings open to the Board on the evidence, and were sufficiently canvassed and considered by the Judge in the Leave Decision at [7]-[15]. We see no basis to interfere.

10. The applicant has accordingly failed to demonstrate how the Board had acted unlawfully or procedurally unfairly in reaching its Decision, or how such Decision could be said to be Wednesbury unreasonable.

11. As we have noted, the applicant advanced no viable grounds of appeal against the Judge’s decision. There is therefore no merit in the appeal and we dismiss the appeal accordingly. (Aarif Barma) (Mimmie Chan) Justice of Appeal Judge of the Court of First Instance The applicant, unrepresented, appearing in person [1] [2026] HKCFI 2477 [2] https://legalref.judiciary.hk/doc/judg/html/vetted/other/en/2021/HCAL000717_2021_files/the_Board's_Decision.pdf