EKEJI GODFREY CHIBUIKE v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

CACV 463/2026, [2026] HKCA 1263

On Appeal From [2026] HKCFI 2232

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 463 OF 2026

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 259 OF 2022)

__________________________

__________________________

________________

J U D G M E N T

________________

Hon D’Almada Remedios J (giving the Judgment of the Court):

Introduction

1.  This is an appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge (Non-refoulement Claims) Connie Lee (“Judge”) on 27 April 2026 dismissing the applicant’s application for leave to apply for judicial review against the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board/adjudicator of the Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office (“Board”) dated 8 April 2022. In that decision, the Board upheld the decision of the Director of Immigration (“Director”) dated 8 June 2020 rejecting the applicant’s non-refoulement claim.

Background

2.  The applicant is a national of Nigeria born in 1968 and his claim was made on the basis that if he returned to Nigeria, he would be harmed or killed by the members of the “All People’s Congress” (“APC”) political party, the Nigerian police, and three political sponsors due to his participation in political activities as a member of an opposing party, the People’s Democratic Party (“PDP”). Details of 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 [2] of the Form CALL-1. The Judge has set out the grounds advanced by the applicant in support of the application and her reasons for refusal of the application: see [5] – [12] of the Form CALL-1.  

Appeal to this Court

3.  On 7 May 2026, the applicant filed his Notice of Appeal against the Judge’s decision. His stated grounds of appeal were, essentially, repeating his claims for non-refoulement protection.

4.  The applicant has lodged written submission in which he repeated the basis of his claim for non-refoulement protection. He also stated that the decisions of the Director and the Board were unreasonable and unfair, that he should be protected under his human rights, that the Director and the Board did not have any representative in Imo State Nigeria to inform them of the situation there, that the Director and the Board relied on misleading and outdated country of origin information by Muslim/Islamist/Jihadist journalists, that another election is coming up in 2027, and that there is no state protection or viable internal relocation option for him.

5.  At the hearing, the applicant pleaded not to be deported back to his home country due to his health problems. He stated that if the government did not kill him, his sickness would kill him and that he had high blood pressure.

Discussion

6.  In assessing the merits of the appeal, we shall have regard to the legal principles which this Court has adopted in dealing with appeals in non-refoulement cases: see Nupur Mst v Director of Immigration [2018] HKCA 524 at [14]; Re Md Shohel Sheak [2018] HKCA 714 at [13]; and Re Limbu Birkhaman [2019] HKCA 50 at [11]. In particular, the role of the Court in a judicial review is not to provide a further avenue of appeal. 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. In the determination of an appeal against the refusal of leave by the Court of First Instance, 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. It is not the role of this Court to examine the decision of the Board afresh as if the appeal were a fresh application for judicial review.

7.  In the present case, the Board found that there was no real risk of harm upon refoulement as alleged, because it did not accept any of the core elements of the applicant’s claims, namely that he was the public relations officer of his political party, that he was targeted or wanted by the police or APC members, and that he was subjected to risk of being harmed or killed by 3 political sponsors. Therefore, the Board concluded that the question of relocation did not arise. These are findings of fact open to the Board based on the evidence it received and for the reasons it gave. The applicant has failed to show any reasonably arguable public law error in relation to the Board’s decision. As for the ground advanced relating to human rights, it consists of a mere general and bald assertion without any particulars. It does not constitute a viable ground of appeal: see Re Salim Ahmed [2020] HKCA 244 at [20].

8.  At the hearing, the applicant raised his health concerns as a reason not to be deported back to his home country. He did not provide particulars as to when his health concerns arose, why he did not inform the lower court or the Board, nor did he provide any documents in support. The applicant failed to explain the relevance of his health concerns or how it might assist his appeal. It is a bare assertion that cannot be entertained in this appeal.

9.  Equally, the applicant has not been able to demonstrate any error in the decision of the Judge or advance any viable ground of appeal against the Judge’s decision. We are not satisfied that there is any error in the Judge’s decision.

10.  The applicant’s appeal is accordingly dismissed.