EMEZUO CHUKWUDI OZOEMENA v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

CACV 41/2025, [2025] HKCA 1084

On Appeal from [2025] HKCA 670

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 41 OF 2025

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 2187 OF 2019)

____________________

____________________

_________________

J U D G M E N T

_________________

Hon Cheng J (giving the Judgment of the Court):

1.  This is an application for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal (“CFA”). The applicant is a Nigerian national whose claim for non-refoulement protection in Hong Kong was rejected by the Director of Immigration (“Director”) and by the Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office (“Board”). His application for leave to apply for judicial review of the Board’s decision was dismissed by the Court of First Instance. His appeal against that decision was dismissed by this Court in our judgment dated 27 August 2025.

2.  By Notice of Motion filed on 15 September 2025, the applicant seeks leave to appeal against our judgment to the CFA.  In that document, the applicant stated that his evidence was sufficiently compelling to be granted leave to apply for judicial review; that there were errors, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the decisions of the Director, the Board and the Judges; that the Director, the Board and the Judges failed to properly consider that he would be harmed or killed due to his inability to repay the loan in his home country; and that the decisions breached his human rights.   

3.  In his written submissions lodged on 26 September 2025, the applicant asserted that his case has merits and the evidence was compelling for a decision to be granted in his favour; that the decisions of the Director, the Board and the Judges were frivolous and unreasonable due to their  underestimation of the dangers of his repatriation; that the Board erred by giving little consideration to the main issue of deaths associated with land disputes and focusing on trivial issues, such as unavoidable inconsistencies due to time lapse, leading to grave procedural unfairness and irrationality in the decision of the Board. 

4.  There is no reason for us to depart from the usual practice of determining an application for leave to appeal on the basis of the available materials without an oral hearing, as set out in paragraph 3 of Practice Direction 2.1.

5.  We take the view that this application ought to be dismissed because the applicant has not shown that the intended appeal raises any question which, by reason of its great general or public importance, or otherwise, ought to be submitted to the CFA for decision (which is the condition for giving leave to appeal under section 22(1)(b) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance, Cap 484), and also because he has failed to show any prospects of success in the intended appeal.

6.  Accordingly, the Notice of Motion is dismissed.