ANYIM POLYCARP NGOZI v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

CACV 772/2025, [2026] HKCA 224

On appeal from [2025] HKCFI 4064

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 772 OF 2025

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO. 2434 OF 2019)

__________________________

__________________________

________________

J U D G M E N T

________________

The Court:

Introduction

1.  This is the applicant’s appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge To (“the Judge”) given in the Form CALL-1 and the Order dated 9 September 2025[1] refusing his application for leave to apply for judicial review against the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board (the “Board”) dated 2 August 2019 (the “Board’s Decision”) whereby the Board dismissed his appeal against the decision of the Director of Immigration (the “Director”) dated 11 December 2018 (the “Director’s Decision”) rejecting his non‑refoulement protection claim.

The applicant’s claim and the Judge’s decision

2.  The applicant is a national of Nigeria. In his non-refoulement claim form filed with the Immigration Department on 3 November 2018, he lodged a claim on the basis that, if refouled, he would be harmed or killed by the Nigerian authorities because of his involvement in the Movement for the Actualization of the Sovereign State of Biafra. The applicant’s non-refoulement claim was rejected by the Director, and his appeal against it was rejected by the Board on 2 August 2019. 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.

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.

The appeal

4.  By a notice of appeal filed on 19 September 2025, the applicant sought to appeal the Judge’s decision to this court, but without providing any particulars or elaboration.

5.  In the applicant’s supporting affidavit dated 19 September 2025, he stated that:

“2. The Court has failed to carefully address and consider the wrong views taken by the Director and Board for which they had failed to apply the law under Article 2 of Section 8 of the Hong Kong Bill of Right Ordinance, Cap. 383 (Risk of violation of right to life)(“BOR 2 risk”), Risk of Torture or Cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment (“CIDTP”) under Article 3 of Section 8 of the Hong Kong Bill of Rights (“BOR 3 risk”)…

3. The Director, the Board and the Court had failed to take into proper account and consideration whilst reaching their decision against my claim in which they have failed to approve my claim and or grant leave to apply for judicial review. Additionally, in assessing all the evidence, CO1 materials, risk of harm, lack of state protection, internal relocation issues, had such failure has resulted to errors of law and or procedural unfairness and irrationality in their decisions.

4. Accordingly, the Director, the Board and the court had failed to realize that I was personally attacked in around December 2007 when police attacked us while attending meeting and subsequently torture me and other members of MASSOB. For this reason, I believe that I would be killed if I am refouled to Nigeria. As I knew that any individual, targeted by the government, no matter how long it takes, eventually, the government must kill the wanted person, whenever they locate his or her whereabouts. Therefore, the Director, the Board and the Court had failed to take into consideration all these factors including the death threat while assessing my case. Thereby resulting in irrationality, unfairness and error of judgment.

5. …The Director, the Board and the Court had failed to take into account of all the circumstances, the evidence I adduced, and substantial grounds for believing that previously I had faced real and personal risk of being harm or even killed by the government, therefore, in the event of my deportation to Nigeria, the state and authorities would not protect me.

…

8. However, the court decision to assert that my claim is unsubstantiated, furthermore, refusing my application for Leave to apply for Judicial Review has clear elements of procedural unfairness for failing to grant Leave to apply for Judicial Review of my claim. Noting that the Board had obviously failed to apply the law stipulated in Section 8 of the Hong Kong Bill of Rights Ordinance, Cap. 383.”

6.  The appeal was heard on 10 February 2026. The applicant attended the hearing in person with the assistance of an Igbo interpreter. The applicant stated that he got married in Hong Kong and his wife suffered from a stroke last December.

Our reasons for decision

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. In particular, 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 is a fresh application for judicial review (see Nupur Mst, at §14(6)).

8.  Further, 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 below will not intervene by way of judicial review unless there is an error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the decision of the Board: Re Kartini [2019] HKCA 1022.

9.  In the present case, no such error of law or procedural unfairness or irrationality in the decision of the Board was observed by the Judge or was pointed out by the applicant apart from the bare assertions as stated in his skeleton argument, which were not substantiated with any specific information or elaboration as to how they apply to his present appeal.

10.  It is incumbent on the applicant to point out the Judge’s errors with sufficient particulars. In our view, the applicant has failed to identify any error on the part of the Judge. They do not constitute any viable grounds of appeal and lack substance. We see no basis to interfere with the Judge’s decision.

11.  For the above reasons, the applicant’s appeal is devoid of merits. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal.