OLANIYI KEHINDE TAJUDEEN v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

CACV 525/2026, [2026] HKCA 1230

On Appeal From [2026] HKCFI 2706

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 525 OF 2026

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 620 OF 2021)

________________________

________________________

________________________

JUDGMENT

________________________

Hon Chow JA (giving the Judgment of the Court):

1.  This is the Applicant’s appeal against the order of Deputy High Court Judge To (“the Judge”) dated 14 May 2026 (“the Order”) refusing to grant leave to the Applicant to apply for judicial review of the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office (“the Board”) dated 26 April 2021 (“the Board’s Decision”), whereby the Board dismissed the Applicant’s appeal against the decision of the Director of Immigration (“the Director”) dated 6 August 2019.

2.  The Applicant alleges that, if refouled to Nigeria, he will be harmed or killed by the government of Nigeria because All Progressives Congress (“APC”) is the current ruling party of his country, and he used to be an active member of APC’s political rival, People’s Democratic Party (“PDP”), members of which have faced harassments, arrests, prosecutions or killings by supporters of APC[1]. The Applicant’s background, the basis of his claim, the findings of the Board and its reasons for dismissing the Applicant’s appeal against the Director’s decision have been set out in detail in the Board’s Decision, and summarised by the Judge in the Judge’s decision (see §§2-7 of the CALL-1 Form).  We do not propose to repeat them here.  

3.  The Judge’s reasons for dismissing the Applicant’s leave application are set out at §§11-15 of the CALL-1 Form.  In gist, the Judge found that the grounds for seeking relief advanced by the Applicant had no merits and did not give rise to any specific grounds of application. The Judge considered that there was no error of law, Wednesbury unreasonableness or irrationality in the Board’s Decision, nor any procedural unfairness on the part of the Board in reaching its decision.

THIS APPEAL

4.  In his Notice of Appeal filed on 22 May 2026, the Applicant asserts that the Judge erred in law in (i) finding no error in the Board’s assessment of the future risk of harm that he would face upon refoulement, (ii) failing to properly analyse the sufficiency of state protection, (iii) failing to consider whether internal relocation would be unduly harsh for him, and (iv) placing weight on the deficiencies of his Form 86, instead of scrutinising the materials before him.

5.  In his written submissions lodged on 16 June 2026, the Applicant contends, amongst other matters, the following:

(1)  The Director, the Board and the Judge failed to properly appreciate or give appropriate weight to the presence of state acquiescence in determining his claim, amounting to a material error of law[2].

(2)  The Director and/or the Board did not properly investigate his claim, in that they failed to adequately consider his evidence, his personal circumstances and the relevant country of origin information[3].

(3)  He was not given an opportunity to properly present his case, giving rise to procedural unfairness and Wednesbury unreasonableness[4].

6.  At the hearing of the appeal, the Applicant stated that supporters of PDP are still being kidnapped and terrorized by the Government or members of APC.

DISCUSSION

7.  In an appeal against refusal of leave to apply for judicial review in non-refoulement cases, the Court of Appeal would 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.  The Court of Appeal’s role is not to examine the Board’s decision afresh as if it was a fresh application for judicial review (see Nupur Mst v Director of Immigration [2018] HKCA 524, at §14(6)).

8.  Further, the assessment of evidence, country of origin information, risk of harm, state protection and viability of internal relocation are primarily within the province of the Board and the Director. 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: Re Kartini [2019] HKCA 1022, at §13.  No such error of law or procedural unfairness or irrationality in the decision of the Board is shown in the present case.

9.  Other than his complaint of not being given an opportunity to properly present his case, the matters raised in the Applicant’s Notice of Appeal and written submissions are general assertions, most of which are directed at the decisions of the Director and the Board.  The Applicant fails to give any particulars to substantiate any of his assertions.  They do not give rise to any valid ground of appeal against the decision of the Judge.

10.  His complaint that he was not given an opportunity to properly present his case is likewise a bare and unsubstantiated assertion.  The Applicant had ample opportunities to gather evidence and make submissions to substantiate his case.  He gave oral evidence at the hearing before the Board, and made submissions at a hearing before the Judge.  The assessment of the Applicant’s claim by the Board and the determination of his leave application by the Judge were thorough and fair overall.

11.  The Applicant has failed to raise any viable ground of appeal against the Order.

12.  The Applicant’s appeal has no merits, and is dismissed.

[1]  See §§9, 14, 15, 17, 18 and 74 of the Board’s Decision.

[2]  See the 3^rd and 4^th paragraphs of the Applicant’s written submissions.

[3]  See the 5^th to 7^th paragraphs of the Applicant’s written submissions.

[4]  See the 8^th paragraph of the Applicant’s written submissions.