OKORONKWO KELECHI KING v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

CACV 690 /2026, [2026] HKCA 1461

On appeal from [2026] HKCFI 3105

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 690 OF 2026

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 855 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 3 September 2019 as a visitor and subsequently overstayed.  He surrendered to the Immigration Department on 15 December 2020 and lodged his non-refoulement claim on 18 January 2021.  His claim was made on the basis that, if refouled, he would be harmed or killed by (1) his creditor as he is unable to repay the loan and (2) the Nigerian government as he is a Christian and a member of the Indigenous People of Biafra (“IPOB”). 

Decisions of the Director and the Board

3.  By the Notice of Decision dated 20 October 2021, the Director of Immigration rejected the applicant’s non-refoulement claim.  His appeal was dismissed by the Board on 16 March 2023[2].

The judge’s decision

4.  The applicant filed a Form 86 on 2 June 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 24 June 2026, the applicant stated the following grounds of appeal:

(1)  The decisions were reached wrongly.  They were unreasonable and unfair as they failed to attain the high standard of fairness required by the Wednesbury test; and

(2)  The applicant’s right to life is not 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 Nigerian authorities had obtained court order declaring the IPOB as a terrorist body;

(2)  The applicant’s claim was not considered properly.  The decision makers failed to appreciate or give proper importance or weight to the presence of state acquiescence;

(3)  A genocide of Christians is going on in Nigeria;

(4)  The country of origin information used by the decision makers was outdated and misleading;

(5)  The decision makers did not consider the persecution risk and Article 2 of section 8 of the Hong Kong Bill of Rights (Cap 383);

(6)  The problem of Nigeria and the IPOB is at its peak now.  State protection is not an option and internal relocation is not feasible.

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.  The applicant did not provide any reliable evidence to support his grounds and submissions.  In particular, he failed to provide any country of origin information and/or any credible evidence to refute the findings of the Board.  He also failed to provide any reasonable explanation for the inconsistencies in his assertions identified by the Board.  Thus, he failed to show any errors of law or procedural unfairness or irrationality in the Board’s decision.

9.  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.  Therefore, the appeal is devoid of merits and is dismissed accordingly.

[1]  [2026] HKCFI 3105

[2]  The Board’s Decision can be viewed in the following hyperlink:

  https://legalref.judiciary.hk/doc/judg/html/vetted/other/en/2023/HCAL000855_2023_files/the_Board's_Decision.pdf