Igwemezie Vitalis Chukwudi v. Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office

HCAL 1168/2025

[2025] HKCFI 5605

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST No. 1168 of 2025

Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review

NOTIFICATION of the Judge’s decision (Ord. 53 r. 3)

Following:

	consideration of documents only;          or
	consideration of documents and Applicant being absent in open court;

Order by Deputy High Court Judge K.W. Lung:

Leave to apply for Judicial Review be refused.

Observations for the Applicant:

THE APPLICATION                                                                        

1.The applicant applies for leave to apply for judicial review of the Decision dated 12 March 2025 of the Torture Claims Appeal Board (“the Board’s Decision”), dismissing the appeal against the Director’s Decision as described below.

2.The applicant did not ask for a hearing.

The applicant                         

3.The applicant is a national of Nigeria. He is an illegal immigrant, having sneaked into Hong Kong illegally by speedboat on 25 April 2024. He surrendered to the Immigration Department on 2 May 2024.  He lodged a non-refoulement claim with the Director of Immigration (“the Director”) on the basis that, if refouled, he will be harmed or killed by the Nigerian military because of his affiliation with the Indigenous People of Biafra (“IPOB”) and supported the independence of Biafra from the Nigerian Federation. He was attacked by soldiers armed with guns and batons numerous times in Nigeria.

4.Details of his claim are set out in the Board’s Decision.  See hyperlink https://legalref.judiciary.hk/doc/judg/html/vetted/other/en/2025/HCAL001168_2025_files/the_Board's_Decision.pdf.

The Director’s Decision

5.The Director considered the applicant’s claim in relation to the following risks:

a.  risk of torture under Part VIIC of the Immigration Ordinance, Cap. 115, (“the Ordinance”) (“Torture risk”);

b.  risk of violation of the right to life under Article 2 of Section 8 of the Hong Kong Bill of Rights Ordinance, Cap. 383 (“HKBOR”) (“BOR 2 risk”);

c.  risk of torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment (“CIDTP”) under Article 3 of Section 8 of the HKBOR (“BOR 3 risk”); and

d.  risk of persecution by reference to the non-refoulement principle under Article 33 of the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees and its 1967 Protocol (“Refugee Convention”) (“Persecution risk”).

6.By way of Notice of Decision dated 5 November 2024 (“the Director’s Decision”), the Director dismissed the applicant’s claim because it was unsubstantiated.

The Board’s Decision

7.The applicant appealed the Director’s Decision to the Board. On 16 January 2025, the Board conducted an oral hearing for his appeal.  He had given oral evidence and answered the Board’s questions.

8.Having considered the evidence, the Board made the findings below.

(1)  He was an unimpressive witness. He was unable to provide any detail or information that was not included in the NCF and there were many inconsistencies between his evidence given to the Director and that given to the Board.  He was not making a genuine effort to assist the Board to obtain the information required to properly assess his claim.  At times, he appeared positively obstructive.  [39] The examples were set out in [40]-[43].

(2)  The Board took the view that he had submitted false documents in support of his claim.  [44]

(3)  The Board agreed with the Director that the applicant had submitted fabricated documents for his claim.  [47]

(4)  The Board rejected his evidence that he was affiliated with IPOB or he was the subject of a wanted notice.  The Board also rejected his evidence that his house was burnt down and his parents killed or he would be at risk of any harm if he returns to Nigeria.  [53]

9.For the reasons above, the Board dismissed his appeal and affirmed the Director’s Decision.

Application for leave to apply for judicial review of the Board’s Decision

10.The applicant has filed Form 86 dated 20 May 2025 for leave to apply for judicial review of the Board’s Decision.

11.In his affidavit in support of his application, the applicant did not raise any specific ground to challenge the Board’s Decision.

DISCUSSION

12.The role of this Court is supervisory, meaning that it ensures that the Board complied with the public law requirements in coming to the Board’s Decision on the applicant’s appeal.  The Court will not usurp the fact-finding power vested in the Director and the Board.  See TK v Michael C Jenkins Esq and Director of Immigration [2013] 1 HKC 526, §40 and Nupur Mst v Director of Immigration [2018] HKCA 524, §14 (1).

13.The Court will bear in mind that the Board’s Decision should be examined with rigorous examination and anxious scrutiny.

14.In Re: Kartini [2019] HKCA 1022, 9 September 2019, the Court of Appeal held:

“13. (1) … …Assessment of evidence and COI materials and 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.”

15.The applicant had appeared before the Board.  The Board was entitled to form its views on the applicant and the quality of his evidence before it.

16.The applicant has raised no valid ground to challenge the Board’s findings.

17.The applicant fails to show that he has any realistic prospect of success in his proposed judicial review of the Board’s Decision.

DISPOSITION

18.I refuse to grant leave to the applicant to apply for judicial review of the Board’s Decision.  Accordingly, I dismiss his application.

Dated the 10^th day of December 2025

Where leave to apply has been granted, Applicants and their legal advisers are reminded of their obligation to reconsider the merits of their application in the light of the Respondent’s evidence

Form CALL-1