OGBU EZE FIDELIS v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

CACV 386/2025, [2026] HKCA 674

On Appeal From [2025] HKCFI 2206

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO.386 OF 2025

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO. 438 OF 2020)

________________________

________________________

________________________

J U D G M E N T

________________________

Hon Anthony Chan JA (giving the Judgment of the Court)  :

Introduction

1.  This is the Applicant’s appeal against the order of Deputy High Court Judge Levy (“Judge”)  dated 4 June 2025 refusing to grant leave to apply for judicial review of the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office (“Board”)  dated 17 January 2020 (“Board’s Decision”)  whereby the Board dismissed the Applicant’s appeal against the decision of the Director of Immigration (“Director”)  dated 31 August 2018 (“Director’s Decision”).

Background

2.  The Applicant is a national of the Nigeria.  He lodged a non-refoulement claim with the Immigration Department on the basis that, if refouled, he would be harmed or killed by his stepmother, who intended to usurp the Applicant’s position as the heir to his late father’s estate.  He also fears discrimination and ill-treatments by the Islamic Fulani herdsmen and Boko Haram for being a Christian.  The Applicant’s non-refoulement claim was rejected by the Director’s Decision, and his appeal against it was rejected by the Board’s Decision.  Details of the Applicant’s claim and the Board’s reasons for rejecting his appeal can be found in the Board’s Decision, the hyperlink to which can be found in the Form CALL-1 dated 4 June 2025 (“Form CALL-1”), [1].  

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 Form CALL-1.

Grounds of Appeal

4.  By a Notice of Appeal filed on 10 June 2025, the Applicant seeks to appeal the Judge’s decision to this Court.  For the grounds of appeal, the Applicant states that :

“I want to appeal [against] the Judgement because don’t agree with it. I plead to the Court of Appeal to review my case.” [sic]

5.  The appeal was scheduled to be heard on 16 April 2026.  The Applicant has failed to lodge any skeleton argument in support of his appeal in accordance with the directions given by the Registrar of Civil Appeals on 3 March 2026.  Accordingly, the Applicant is deemed to have waived his right to have an oral hearing of the appeal, and elected to have the appeal disposed of on paper.  Having considered the documents before us, we are of the view that it is appropriate to deal with this appeal on paper without an oral hearing. 

Legal Principles

6.  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)).

7.  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 and Disposition

8.  In the present case, no error of law or procedural unfairness or irrationality in the decision of the Board was detected by the Judge[1].  The matters stated in the Notice of Appeal do not constitute any viable grounds of appeal.  We see no basis to interfere with the Judge’s decision. 

9.  For the above reasons, this appeal is devoid of merits.  We dismiss it accordingly with no order as to costs.