RE ANI CHRISTIAN

CACV 1213/2025, [2026] HKCA 234

On appeal from [2025] HKCFI 5945

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 1213 OF 2025

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL 700/2021)

-----------------------------------

-----------------------------------

___________________

J U D G M E N T

___________________

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

1.  This is an appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge (Non-refoulement Claims) Jeffrey Chau (“the Judge”) given on 15 December 2025[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 7 May 2021 (“the Board’s Decision”) dismissing the applicant’s appeal against the decision of the Director of Immigration dated 20 September 2019 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 by the Judge in the Leave Decision at [4] and [9], which will not be repeated.

3.  After considering the documents filed by the applicant and the applicant’s oral submissions made at the hearing for the leave application, the Judge dismissed the application for the reasons stated at [5]-[11] of the Leave Decision.

Appeal to this court

4.  In the Notice of Appeal filed on 19 December 2025, the applicant stated, in gist, that he was dissatisfied with the court’s decision and that the Leave Decision failed to “attain high standard of fairness”.

5.  In breach of the directions made by the Registrar of Civil Appeals, the applicant failed to lodge skeleton submissions with the court, despite being warned that the hearing date would be vacated and the appeal dealt with on paper in the event of non-compliance.

6.  The hearing date on 10 February 2026 was therefore vacated and the applicant was debarred from lodging any written submissions.

7.  However, by a letter dated 2 February 2026, the applicant asked for an extension of time for the filing of his written submissions, stating that he was in the course of obtaining assistance in drafting and filing the same.  On the same day, the applicant lodged his written submissions, which essentially repeated the background of his upbringing in Nigeria, the bases for his alleged fear of harm if refouled to Nigeria, and the complaints as set out in his Notice of Appeal.

8.  Although this court is not prepared to reinstate the oral hearing, it is on this occasion prepared to consider the applicant’s written submissions.  Accordingly, this court directed on 3 February 2026 that the hearing fixed for 10 February 2026 is to remain vacated, but that retrospective leave be granted to the applicant to lodge his written submissions dated 2 February 2026.

9.  We have dealt with the appeal on paper on the basis of the materials already filed with the court.

Discussion

10.  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.

11.  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.  General assertions of fear if refouled do not constitute proper grounds of appeal: Re Saldua Dorothy Trifalgar [2022] HKCA 627 at [6]. 

12.  In the present case, the Board found the factual bases of the applicant’s claim or alleged risk of harm to be incredible, as there were inconsistencies in material parts of his evidence (Board’s Decision, [67]‑[76]).  The Board was all in all not satisfied that the applicant would be at a real risk of harm should he be refouled to Nigeria.  These were factual findings open to the Board on the evidence, and were sufficiently canvassed and considered by the Judge in the Leave Decision.  We have also subjected the Board’s Decision to anxious scrutiny, and we see no basis to interfere with the Judge’s findings and conclusions.

13.  The applicant has 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.

14.  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.