RE IZUANAGBARA CHINEDU VITALIS

CACV 139/2026, [2026] HKCA 713

On Appeal From [2026] HKCFI 763

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 139 OF 2026

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO. 893 OF 2021)

__________________

__________________

__________________

JUDGMENT

__________________

Hon Queeny Au-Yeung J (giving the Judgment of the Court):

1.  This is the applicant’s appeal against the order of Deputy High Court Judge (Non-Refoulment Claims) Jeffrey Chau (‘the Judge’) dated 9 February 2026 ([2026] HKCFI 763) (‘the Leave Decision’) refusing his application for leave to apply for judicial review (‘the Leave Application’) against the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office (‘the Board’) dated 5 May 2021 (‘the Board’s Decision’), whereby the Board dismissed his appeal/petition against the decision of the Director of Immigration (‘the Director’) dated 11 September 2019 (‘the Director’s Decision’), refusing his non-refoulement claim.

2.  This appeal was scheduled to be heard on 8 April 2026. Despite the directions from the Court to the applicant dated 20 February 2026 (‘Directions’), the applicant lodged written submission out of time. Accordingly, by [11] of the Directions, the hearing of the appeal was vacated and the Court will now deal with this appeal on paper.

3.  The applicant’s background, the basis of his claim and arguments advanced before the Board as well as the Board’s reasons for rejecting his appeal are all set out in the Board’s Decision: see [3] of the Leave Decision[1].

4.  The applicant is a national of Nigeria[2]. He arrived in Hong Kong on 29 May 2019[3]. On 5 June 2019, he surrendered to the Immigration Department for seeking protection. He made a non-refoulement claim by way of written representations on 12 June 2019 and 3 July 2019[4]. The basis of his claim is that he would be harmed or killed upon refoulement by his creditor and his people owing to an outstanding debt and because he is Christian[5].

5.  The Judge sets out his reasons for refusing the Leave Application: see [4] – [11] of the Leave Decision. We will not repeat the details herein.

6.  By the Notice of Appeal filed on 20 February 2026, the applicant stated:

‘There are error (sic) of law or procedural unfairness or irrationality in both decisions. I will face persecution risk if I am allowed to return to my country. There would be no state protection. No internal relocation. The country of origin information used to decide my claim is misleading.’

Discussion

7.  The relevant legal principles governing appeals in non-refoulement cases are set out in Nupur Mst v Director of Immigration [2018] HKCA 524 at [14].

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

9.  In light of the above, it is thus incumbent on the applicant to point out the errors in the Leave Decision with sufficient particulars and specifics.

10.  However, nowhere in his Notice of Appeal or written submission did the applicant identify any error committed by the Judge with specific particulars. His assertions are all general, bare and vague allegations unsupported by specific particulars or evidence. General assertions of his fear if refouled do not constitute proper grounds of appeal: Re Saldua Dorothy Trifalgar [2022] HKCA 627 at [6]. The Court will not usurp the role of the Board. Assessment of evidence, country of origin information materials, 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. No such error was demonstrated by the applicant. Clearly, his assertions do not constitute viable grounds of appeal and lack substance. We see no basis to interfere with the Leave Decision.

11.  For the above reasons, the applicant’s appeal against the Leave Decision has no merit and is dismissed.