ANYIM EGBERT UMUNNA v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE
[2026] HKCA 1509 · CACV 703/2026
Court of Appeal
CACV 703/2026, [2026] HKCA 1509
On Appeal From [2026] HKCFI 3109
IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
COURT OF APPEAL
CIVIL APPEAL NO 703 OF 2026
(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 1542 OF 2022)
__________________________
BETWEEN
| |ANYIM EGBERT UMUNNA |Applicant |
| |and | |
| |TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD/ |Putative |
| |NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE |Respondent |
| |and | |
| |DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION |Putative |
| | |Interested Party|
__________________________
Before: Hon Barma JA and Mimmie Chan J in Court
Date of Hearing: 18 August 2026
Date of Judgment: 1 September 2026
________________
J U D G M E N T
________________
Hon Mimmie Chan J (giving the Judgment of the Court):
1. This is an appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge
(Non-refoulement Claims) Martin Wong (“the Judge”) given on 12 June
2026[1] (“the Leave Decision”) refusing to grant leave for the
applicant to apply for judicial review. The intended judicial
review was against the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal
Board/adjudicator of the Non-Refoulement Claims Petition Office
(“the Board”) dated 31 August 2022 (“the Board’s Decision”)
dismissing the applicant’s appeal against the decision of the
Director of Immigration dated 19 September 2018 rejecting the
applicant’s non-refoulement claim.
2. The applicant’s background, the basis of his claim and the Board’s
reasons in reaching the Board’s Decision have been set out
therein[2] as well as by the Judge in the Leave Decision at [3],
which will not be repeated.
3. After considering the documents filed by the applicant as well as
the oral submissions he made at the hearing of the leave
application, the Judge dismissed the application for the reasons
stated at [4]-[10] of the Leave Decision.
Appeal to this court
4. In a Notice of Appeal dated 26 June 2026, the applicant stated,
without elaboration or particulars, that he would face hardship if
he were refouled, and that the assessors of his claim did not
consider the “persecution risk” nor did they properly consider
“Article 2 of the Bill of Rights”.
5. By written submissions dated 20 July 2026, the applicant repeated
his personal background and the factual basis to his claim. He
stated that he was dissatisfied with the “assessors” of his claim
and that the Board had relied on “outdated and misleading Country
of Origin information posted on facebook by Muslim government of
Nigeria”. He further claimed that internal relocation “would not
be feasible” for him.
6. We heard the appeal on 18 August 2026, at which the applicant
appeared in person. At the hearing, the applicant submitted that
the situation in his country was getting worse, and that he wished
to submit further documents to prove that his life was still in
danger there. As those documents have not been considered by the
Judge in the Court below, we will not permit the applicant to
adduce them in this appeal, and we will determine the appeal on the
basis of the materials already filed.
Discussion
7. As this court has often stated, an appeal to the Court of Appeal is
not a fresh application for judicial review. It is necessary to
identify some error on the part of the judge that would justify
this court in intervening: see Nupur Mst v Director of Immigration
[2018] HKCA 524 at [14]. 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. An
appeal is not the occasion for regurgitating arguments advanced and
rejected by the judge or for running arguments which could and
should have been raised but were not raised before the judge. In
the determination of an appeal, the Court of Appeal focuses on the
decision of the judge and the court will only reverse that decision
if an appellant could demonstrate that the judge made errors of law
or failed to take account of relevant matters already placed before
the court or was otherwise plainly wrong.
8. The applicant has failed to identify any error on the part of the
Judge and thus failed to raise any viable ground of appeal. The
points advanced by the applicant were bare assertions unsupported
by particulars or evidence.
9. In the present case, the Board afforded the applicant the benefit
of the doubt in that it accepted that he was a member of the
Indigenous People of Biafra (“IPOB”; a group which the Nigerian
government has designated as a terrorist group) and that on
occasions he had been arrested for his involvement with IPOB
(although he has never been charged for an offence). The Board
considered, however, that the applicant was an untruthful witness
who had fabricated evidence to bolster his claim, and it did not
accept that the applicant played a leadership role in IPOB, nor
accordingly that a real risk of serious harm would befall him
should he be refouled. These were findings open to the Board, and
were sufficiently canvassed and considered by the Judge in the
Leave Decision at [4]-[10]. We see no basis to interfere.
10. The applicant has accordingly failed to demonstrate how the Board
had acted unlawfully or procedurally unfairly in reaching its
Decision, or how such Decision could be said to be Wednesbury
unreasonable.
11. As we have noted, the applicant advanced no viable grounds of
appeal against the Judge’s decision. There is therefore no merit
in the appeal and we dismiss the appeal accordingly.
|(Aarif Barma) |(Mimmie Chan) |
|Justice of Appeal |Judge of the |
| |Court of First Instance |
The applicant appearing in person
-----------------------
[1] [2026] HKCFI 3109
[2]https://legalref.judiciary.hk/doc/judg/html/vetted/other/en/2022/HCAL00
1542_2022_files/the_Board's_Decision.pdf
-----------------------
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
N
O
P
Q
R
S
T
U
V
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
N
O
P
Q
R
S
T
U
V
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
N
O
P
Q
R
S
T
U
V
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
N
O
P
Q
R
S
T
U
VCourt
Procedural posture
Issues
Holdings
Legal principles
Disposition
Appeal history
ANYIM EGBERT UMUNNA v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE
CA · [2026] HKCA 1509
This judgment