UGBAJA PATRICK IBEAWUCHI v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

CACV 683 /2026, [2026] HKCA 1458

On appeal from [2026] HKCFI 3104

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 683 OF 2026

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 843 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 16 December 2013 as visitor and subsequently overstayed.  He surrendered to the Immigration Department on 26 January 2021 and raised a non-refoulement claim on 4 March 2021.  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 22 April 2022, 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 29 March 2023[6].

The judge’s decision

4.  The applicant filed a Form 86 on 31 May 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)  There is nothing like state protection;

(2)  There is nothing like internal relocation;

(3)  The persecution risk was not very well considered; and

(4)  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(1)  The assessors of his claim relied on outdated and misleading country of origin information posted on Facebook by the Nigerian authorities;

(2)  The Islamist Nigerian government is planning to Islamise the entire country.  The applicant is a Christian and the entire Igbo tribe are Christian.  He is among the wanted people in Nigeria.  He is an active member of Indigenous People of Biafra; and

(3)  His persecution risk, BOR 2 risk and BOR 3 risk were not assessed properly.

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.  As the Board found the applicant failed to establish any real risk of harm on any of the applicable grounds, it is not obliged to consider the issues of state protection and internal relocation. The Board’s finding was not based on the country of origin information but the applicant’s failure to provide detailed information and the vagueness of his assertions.  The applicant failed to provide any evidence to refute the findings of the Board.

9.  The rest of his grounds and submissions are just bare assertions without any evidence in support.  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.

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

[1]  [2026] HKCFI 3104

[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/HCAL000843_2023_files/the_Board's_Decision.pdf