EMESIANI EBUKA CHRISTOPHER v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

HCAL 471/2021

[2026] HKCFI 2128

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST

NO 471 OF 2021

_____________

_____________

_____________

D E C I S I O N

_____________

Introduction

1.  The Applicant has a dual citizenship and is a national in Nigeria and Namibian. On 7 August 2019, he initiated his claim for non-refoulement protection. In gist, he feared that he would be harmed by the people of Boko Haram who killed his father and attempted to force him to convert to Islam. The claim was assessed by the Director of Immigration (the “DOI”) on all applicable grounds. By a decision dated 25 September 2019, the DOI rejected his claim.

2.  The Applicant then challenged the decision before the Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office (the “TCAB”). By the decision dated 3 March 2021 (the “TCAB Decision”), the TCAB dismissed his petition.

3.  By a Form 86 filed on 7 April 2021 (the “Form 86”), the Applicant applied for leave to apply for judicial review against the TCAB Decision. By the decision dated 9 February 2026 ([2026] HKCFI 761) (the “Court Decision”), the court dismissed the application on the ground that the intended judicial review against the TCAB Decision was not reasonably arguable. Pursuant to Order 53, rule 3(4) of the Rules of the High Court, the Applicant had 14 days to appeal the Court Decision had he wished to do so. That period had expired.

4.  By the Summons filed on 26 February 2026, the Applicant applied for an extension of time to appeal against the Court Decision (the “Application”). The Applicant requested for a hearing and attended the same.

5.  The Application was heard before me on 4 March 2026. When asked if he anything to add, he said he had started a new life in Hong Kong, that the US issued a statement about the Christians in Nigeria, that Nigeria was a state of concern because they were killing Christians. He added that he was married and his wife was present in court.

Discussion

6.  Under Order 53, rule 3(4) of the Rules of the High Court, where an application for leave to apply for judicial review is refused by a judge, the applicant may appeal against the judge’s order within 14 days after such order.

7.  In considering whether to grant an extension of time, the court will take into consideration of: (1) the length of the delay; (2) the reasons for the delay; (3) the prospect of success in the intended appeal; and (4) the prejudice to the putative respondent if the extension of time was granted: Re Mijares Jero Oliveros [2025] HKCA 744 at [12]; Re Adumekwe Rowland Ejike [2019] HKCA 702 at [18]; Re Rahman Wasif [2019] HKCA 299 at [13]. In particular, the prospect of success of the intended appeal is of crucial consideration: Re Kpamou Gbotoi Bernard [2019] HKCA 168 at [15]; Re Irshad Muhammad [2018] HKCA 864 at [16].

8.  There was a delay in the Application by a few days.

9.  The reason for his delay was set out in his Summons. He states that “The delay was not due to any fault or lack of diligence on the part of the Applicant, but was caused by calculating the deadline. I mistakenly believed that the 14 days period referred only to working or business days. I did not understand that the time limit ran continuously over calender (sic) days, and that general public holidays and court holidays were to be included in the calculation”. I do not consider this a satisfactory explanation for delay. However, given that the delay was relatively short, I am prepared to grant indulgence to extend time if there is merit in the Applicant’s intended appeal.

10.  In the Summons and supporting affidavit, the Applicant did not state any grounds for his intended appeal other than an assertion that “I cannot go back to my country because of the threats in my country. Months ago, the President, United States of America label called my Country. A country of particular consign so that means the muslims killing the Christians it’s a threat for a Christian to live in my country and also I have already started a new family here and I have a wife that is why I’m make this application”. I note that these matters have been fully ventilated in the hearings below, and have been considered by the TCAB and this Court: see in particular [9] and [10] of the Court Decision. They do not support any grounds of appeal. It is trite that an appeal is not simply the opportunity for an applicant to re-run the same arguments again without demonstrating where the first instance decision went wrong. I was not satisfied that there were merits in the application for leave to apply for judicial review, and I am still not satisfied that there are merits in the intended appeal.

11.  Given the above, I do not consider it necessary to discuss any potential prejudice caused to the putative respondent.

12.  Accordingly, I refuse to extend time and the Application is dismissed.