Okeke Stanley Chigbogu and Another v. Torture Claims Appeal Board

CACV 443/2021, [2024] HKCA 305 On Appeal From [2024] HKCA 163 IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION COURT OF APPEAL CIVIL APPEAL NO 443 OF 2021 (ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 2208 OF 2018) ____________ BETWEEN       OKEKE STANLEY CHIGBOGU 1st Applicant   OKEKE SOMADINA OBIEKUNIE 2nd Applicant and   TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD Putative     Respondent and   DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION Putative     Interested Party

____________

Before:

Hon G Lam and Chow JJA in Court

Date of Written Submissions:	15 March 2024
Date of Judgment:	12 April 2024

_________________

J U D G M E N T

_________________

Hon G Lam JA (giving the Judgment of the Court):

1.This is an application by the 1^st applicant for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal (“CFA”). The 1^st applicant is a Nigerian national whose claim for non-refoulement protection in Hong Kong was rejected by the Director of Immigration and by the Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office (“Board”). His application (and that of his son, the 2^nd applicant) for leave to apply for judicial review of the Board’s decision were dismissed by the Court of First Instance. Their appeal against that decision was dismissed by this Court in our judgment dated 21 February 2024.

2.By Notice of Motion filed on 1 March 2024, the 1^st applicant (acting for himself only) seeks leave to appeal against our judgment to the CFA.  In that document the 1^st applicant stated that there was error in the judgment doubting his active membership of IPOB.  He referred to police officers who were in communication with him as one of the leaders of IPOB during their 30 May 2023 commemorative event.  He said there were unexplained disappearances of IPOB members and extra-judicial killings in Nigeria so that it would be very dangerous for him to return there.  These matters were repeated in his written submissions which also attached certain documents.

3.There is no reason for us to depart from the usual practice of determining an application for leave to appeal on the basis of the available materials without an oral hearing, as set out in paragraph 3 of Practice Direction 2.1.

4.We take the view that this application ought to be dismissed because the 1^st applicant has not shown that the intended appeal raises any question which, by reason of its great general or public importance, or otherwise, ought to be submitted to the CFA for decision (which is the condition for giving leave to appeal under section 22(1)(b) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance, Cap 484), and also because he has failed to show any prospects of success in the intended appeal.

5.Accordingly, the Notice of Motion is dismissed.

(Godfrey Lam) Justice of Appeal

(Anderson Chow) Justice of Appeal

The 1^st Applicant, unrepresented, acting in person