CHUKS DAVID v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

CACV 338/2025, [2026] HKCA 698

On Appeal From [2025] HKCFI 1856

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO.338 OF 2025

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO. 500 OF 2020)

________________________

________________________

________________________

J U D G M E N T

________________________

Hon Anthony Chan JA (giving the Judgment of the Court)  :

Introduction

1.  This is the Applicant’s appeal against the order of Deputy High Court Judge (Non-refoulement Claims)  Philips Wong (“Judge”)  dated 22 May 2025 refusing to grant leave to apply for judicial review of the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office (“Board”)  dated 23 March 2020 (“Board’s Decision”)  whereby the Board dismissed the Applicant’s appeal against the decision of the Director of Immigration (“Director”)  dated 31 December 2018 (“Director’s Decision”).

Background

2.  The Applicant is a national of Nigeria.  He lodged a non-refoulement claim with the Immigration Department on the basis that, if refouled, he would be harmed or killed by his uncle due to a land dispute.  The Applicant’s non-refoulement claim was rejected by the Director’s Decision, and his appeal against it was rejected by the Board’s Decision.  Details of the Applicant’s claim and the Board’s reasons for rejecting his appeal can be found in the Board’s Decision, the hyperlink to which can be found in the Form CALL-1 dated 22 May 2025 (“Form CALL-1”), [3].  

3.  The Applicant’s application for leave to apply for judicial review was refused by the Judge and details of the Judge’s reasons for refusing to grant leave can be found in the Form CALL-1. 

Grounds of Appeal

4.  By a Notice of Appeal filed on 27 May 2025, the Applicant sought to appeal the Judge’s decision to this Court.  For the grounds of appeal, the Applicant states that :

“My life is still in danger if I go back to my country. My uncle is still searching for me to kill me so that he can take procession of the land my late father kept for me to inherit. My uncle is a well known politician in my country who is so desperate to get whatever he wishes. Appealing to this Honourable Court to still intervene in my case cos my Uncle is still after my life to kill me.” (sic)

5.  The Applicant lodged his written submissions on 18 March 2026.  In the submissions, he reiterates his claim and that his life would be at risk if refouled, and his arguments can be summarised as follows :

(1)  The Director erred in deciding that state protection is available to him in Nigeria, and both the Director and the Board erred in deciding that internal relocation is available to the Applicant in his home country;

(2)  The Director and the Board should have accepted his claim as he faced genuine persecution risk, BOR 2 and BOR 3 risks of harm;

(3)  The Director and the Board relied on outdated country of origin information when assessing his claim and were unfair to him;

(4)  The Director and the Board failed to give enough weight to his claim before reaching their decisions.

6.  Significantly, the Applicant did not identify any complaint against or any error made by the Judge in dismissing his application for leave to apply for judicial review.

7.  At the hearing the Applicant said that his country is affected by extremists.  His uncle is still on his trail.  He begs to stay in Hong Kong.

Legal Principles

8.  In an appeal against refusal of leave to apply for judicial review in non-refoulement cases, the Court of Appeal would 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 of Appeal’s role is not to examine the Board’s decision afresh as if it was a fresh application for judicial review (see Nupur Mst v Director of Immigration [2018] HKCA 524, at §14(6)).

9.  The assessment of evidence, country of origin information, risk of harm, state protection and viability of internal relocation are primarily within the province of the Board and the Director.  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: Re Kartini [2019] HKCA 1022.

Discussion and Disposition

10.  In this case, no error of law or procedural unfairness or irrationality in the decision of the Board was detected by the Judge.

11.  It is incumbent upon the Applicant to demonstrate with sufficient particulars and specificities that the Judge had erred in coming to his decision.  In our view, the matters set out in the Applicant’s Notice of Appeal and written submissions are bare assertions.  They lack substance and do not constitute any viable grounds of appeal.  We see no basis to interfere with the Judge’s decision. 

12.  The Applicant’s appeal is devoid of merits.  We dismiss it accordingly with no order as to costs.