KONAN YAO PASCAL v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD

CACV 812/2025, [2026] HKCA 456

On appeal from [2025] HKCFI 4211

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 812 OF 2025

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 3409 OF 2019)

__________________________

BETWEEN

__________________________

________________

JUDGMENT

________________

The Court:

INTRODUCTION

1.  This is the applicant’s appeal against the order of Deputy High Court Judge Michael Wong (“the Judge”) dated 16 September 2025[1] (“the Order”) refusing to grant leave to apply for judicial review of the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office (“the Board”) dated 24 October 2019 (“the Board’s Decision”) whereby the Board dismissed his appeal against the decision of the Director of Immigration (“the Director”) dated 13 November 2018 (“the Director’s Decision”).

BACKGROUND

2.  The applicant is a national of Nigeria. He lodged a non-refoulement claim with the Immigration Department on the basis that, if refouled, he would be harmed or killed by the Nigerian government for supporting the cause of Biafran independence in Nigeria. The applicant’s non-refoulement claim was rejected by the Director, and the appeal against it was rejected by the Board. Details of the applicant’s claim and the Board’s reasons for rejecting the applicant’s appeal can be found in the Board’s Decision, the hyperlink to which can be found in the CALL-1 Form.

3.  The applicant’s application for leave to apply for judicial review was refused by the Judge and details of the Judge’s reasons for refusing to grant leave can be found in the CALL-1 Form.

GROUNDS OF APPEAL

4.  By a notice of appeal filed on 30 September 2025, the applicant sought to appeal the Judge’s decision to this court. For the grounds of appeal, the applicant stated that (sic) “There are errors in law or procedural unfairness in the Judgement. The Assessors did not consider the state aquiecence. I want to seek Justice”.

5.  In the applicant’s skeleton submissions lodged on 21 January 2026, he reiterated his claim and that his life would be at risk if refouled and further stated that :-

“…

I ran to Hong Kong for my safety. I believe that the burden of proof of my claim is upon me to narrate but for the Director of Immigration and the Board reject my claim shows error of law and procedural unfairness and lacked high standard of consideration. I am not satisfied with their decisions because they relied much on country of origin information posted by Muslim Journalists. I have come to the Honourable Judges to give fairness to my Claim and overturn the decisions.

I am of the opinion that my non-refoulement claim was not assessed on all applicable grounds of the Unified Screen Mechanism (USM). The risk of violation of my right to life BOR 2 Risk under Article 2 of the Section 8 of the Hong Kong Bill of Rights Ordinance Cap 383 is violated.

There is no state protection in my country. The Army (soldiers) are my enemies. They are the ones killing the youths. Again, there is no Internal Relocation as the country is now bleeding. Insecurity is on high rate. I cannot go back to my country now because United States of America has declared Nigeria as a country of Particular Concern (CPC).”

6.  At the hearing on 24 February 2026, the applicant reiterated that his life would be in danger if he were returned to his home country. He added that he is married to a Hong Kong resident in 2024 and has a family here.

LEGAL PRINCIPLES

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.  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.

DISCUSSION & DISPOSITION

9.  In the present case, the Judge found no error of law or procedural unfairness or irrationality in the decision of the Board.

10.  It is incumbent on the applicant to point out the Judge's errors with sufficient particulars and specifics. In our view, the matters set out in the applicant’s notice of appeal and written and oral submissions failed to identify any error on the part of the Judge. They do not constitute any viable grounds of appeal and lack substance. We see no basis to interfere with the Judge’s decision.

11.  For the above reasons, the applicant’s appeal is devoid of merits. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal.