UGBOMA CHIMA EMMANUEL v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

CACV 682 /2026, [2026] HKCA 1457

On appeal from [2026] HKCFI 3099

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 682 OF 2026

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 211 OF 2023)

________________________

________________________

________________________

J U D G M E N T

________________________

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

Background

1.  This is an appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge Martin Wong dated 11 June 2026[1] refusing 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. 

2.  The applicant is a national of Nigeria.  He arrived in Hong Kong on 26 November 2019 as visitor and subsequently overstayed.  He surrendered to the Immigration Department on 15 September 2020 and raised a non-refoulement claim on 23 September 2020.  His claim was made on the basis that, if refouled, he would be harmed and killed by the Nigerian government because he is a member of the opposing political affiliation.

Decisions of the Director and the Board

3.  By the Notice of Decision dated 29 October 2021, the Director of Immigration (“the Director”) rejected the applicant’s non-refoulement claim on all applicable grounds including torture risk[2], BOR 2 risk[3], BOR 3 risk[4] and persecution risk[5].  His appeal was dismissed by the Board on 22 November 2022[6].

The judge’s decision

4.  The applicant filed a Form 86 on 13 February 2023 to seek leave to apply for judicial review against the decision of the Board.  His application was dismissed by the judge on 11 June 2026.

Grounds of appeal

5.  In the notice of appeal filed on 23 June 2026, the applicant stated the following grounds of appeal:

(1)  The Country of Origin Information used for deciding his claim is misleading;

(2)  The persecution risk was not considered properly;

(3)  His right to life needs to be properly protected under Article 28 of the Basic law and Article 2 of the Bill of Rights.

6.  He put forward the following contentions in his written submissions:

(1)  The materials submitted were not properly considered;

(2)  His claim was not assessed on all applicable grounds;

(3)  He would face persecution risk and hardship;

(4)  There is corruption in his country and the authorities cannot protect him;

(5)  Internal relocation option is not feasible;

(6)  There is no state protection as suggested by assessors;

(7)  It is a clear case of unfair attitude shown by both the Director and the Board.  Both are biased and did not apply the required high standard of fairness.

Legal principles

7.  The Court of Appeal’s general approach in dealing with appeals in non-refoulement cases is set out in Nupur Mst v Director of Immigration [2018] HKCA 524 at §14. 

Analysis and disposition

8.  The applicant’s grounds and submissions are just bare assertions without evidence in support.  The applicant’s claim was assessed on all applicable grounds and detailed reasoning was provided for the refusal of his claim.  The Board’s decision is well founded and the applicant failed to provide any evidence to refute the findings of the Board.  He also failed to demonstrate that the judge had made errors of law or failed to take account of relevant matters already placed before the court or was otherwise plainly wrong.

9.  The appeal is devoid of merits and is dismissed accordingly.

[1]  [2026] HKCFI 3099

[2]  This refers to the risk of torture under Part VIIC of the Immigration Ordinance, Cap 115.

[3]  This refers to the risk of being arbitrarily deprived of life under Article 2 of section 8 of the Hong Kong Bill of Rights Ordinance, Cap 383.

[4]  This refers to risk of torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment under Article 3 of section 8 of the Hong Kong Bill of Rights Ordinance, Cap 383.

[5]  This refers to the risk of persecution with reference to the non-refoulement principle under Article 33 of the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees and its 1967 Protocol.

[6]  The Board’s Decision can be viewed in the following hyperlink:

  https://legalref.judiciary.hk/doc/judg/html/vetted/other/en/2023/HCAL000211_2023_files/the_Board's_Decision.pdf