EKWE CHIDIEBERE KINGSLEY v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

CACV 435/2025, [2026] HKCA 652

On Appeal From [2025] HKCFI 2197

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 435 OF 2025

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 511 OF 2020)

________________________

_____________________

______________

J U D G M E N T

______________

The Court:

INTRODUCTION

1.  This is the Applicant’s appeal against the order of Deputy High Court Judge (Non-refoulement Claims) Philips Wong (“the Judge”) dated 12 June 2025 (“the Order”) refusing to grant leave to apply for judicial review of the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office (“the Board”) dated 7 January 2020 (“the Board’s Decision”).

BACKGROUND

2.  The Applicant is a national of Nigeria. On 16 September 2014, the Applicant lodged a non-refoulement claim on the basis that, if refouled, he would be harmed or killed by a religious group of animists/elders who lived in the home area because of their personal animosity towards him.[1]  The Applicant’s claim was rejected by the Director of Immigration (“the Director”) on 7 December 2018, and the appeal against the Director’s decisions was rejected by the Board on 7 January 2020. Details of the Applicant’s claim and the Board’s reasons for rejecting the Applicant’s appeal can be found in the Board’s Decision, the hyperlink to which can be found in the CALL-1 Form dated 12 June 2025.[2]

3.  The Applicant’s application for leave to apply for judicial review was refused by the Judge on 12 June 2025. Details of the Judge’s reasons for refusing to grant leave can be found in the CALL-1 Form.

GROUNDS OF APPEAL

4.  In the Notice of Appeal filed on 24 June 2025, the Applicant states that:

“I totally disagree with both decisions of the Director of Immigration and Torture Claims Appeal Board. The Judicial review is to enable me obtain fair Judgement. Because my claims were rejected based on wrong application of country of origin information by both decision makers.” (sic)

5.  In the 7-page written submissions lodged on 22 January 2026, apart from reiterating his personal background and non-refoulement claim, the Applicant essentially argues that:

(1)  His claim was not assessed on the applicable grounds, especially his “rights to life under Article 2 of section 8 of Hong Kong Bill of Rights”.

(2)  He was surprised that his claim was rejected by the Director and the Board based on incredibility.

(3)  He asked the authorities of Hong Kong to reconsider his claim because he discovered error of law.

(4)  There was a clear case of unfair attitude shown by the Director and the Board, who failed to give weight to his claim because they are not religious and do not understand how African charm or black magic works in Africa.

(5)  The Director and the Board relied so much on state protection which is not available, internal relocation, and country of origin information which is misleading.

(6)  “Animistic charm or strange is called mental torture” which would kill a person internally but is “very hard to discover by the orthodox doctors”.

6.  The above written submissions were lodged beyond the deadline imposed by the Registrar of Civil Appeals on 1 December 2025, which required him to do so on or before 23 December 2025. Accordingly, the Applicant is deemed to have waived the right to have an oral hearing of the appeal and elect to have the appeal disposed of on paper. Having considered the documents before us, we consider that it is appropriate to deal with the Applicant’s appeal on paper without an oral hearing.

DISCUSSION & DISPOSITION

7.  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)).

8.  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.

9.  The matters raised in the Applicant’s Notice of Appeal and written submissions do not constitute any valid grounds of appeal against the Judge’s decision.

10.  The Applicant has failed to identify or show any error in the Judge’s decision refusing to grant leave to apply for judicial review, or raise any viable ground of appeal against the Order.

11.  The Applicant’s appeal has no merit, and is dismissed.