Re Isiuwe Cornelius

CACV 125/2026, [2026] HKCA 736

On Appeal From [2026] HKCFI 485

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 125 OF 2026

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL 1236/2025)

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

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

________________

J U D G M E N T

________________

Hon Leung J (giving the Judgment of the Court):

1.This is an appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge KW Lung (“the Judge”) dated 4 February 2026[1] (“the Leave Decision”) refusing to grant leave for the applicant to apply for judicial review. The intended judicial review was that of the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board/adjudicator of the Non-Refoulement Claims Petition Office (“the Board”) dated 16 April 2025 (“the Board’s Decision”) whereby the applicant’s appeal against the decision of the Director of Immigration (“the Director”) dated 29 November 2024 rejecting the applicant’s non-refoulement claim was dismissed.

2.The applicant is a Nigerian national. His personal background, basis of claim and the Board’s reasons were set out the Board’s Decision[2] as well as the Leave Decision at [3] and [7]-[9]. They will not be repeated here.

3.The applicant did not request for an oral hearing of the leave application. After considering the documents filed by the applicant, the Judge dismissed the application for the reasons stated at [12]-[17] of the Leave Decision.

Appeal to this Court

4.In his Notice of Appeal dated 12 February 2026, the applicant stated that he would face “hardship” should he be refouled. He contended that the Board relied on “the source of news which is not officially recognised or it is simply hearsay” and “some cases which are outdated”. However, no particular was given.

5.The requirement for lodging of skeleton submissions in an appeal is prescribed by Practice Direction 4.1. Compliance with such requirement on the part of an applicant is important for the proper and effective functioning of our appeal process. Nowadays, this Court no longer permits unfocused oral presentation of material at an oral hearing. In view of the heavy demand on the Court’s time due to the large volume of appeals, in recent times this Court has taken a firm stance on the requirement to lodge skeleton submissions. Non-compliance with such requirement is treated as the abandonment of the right to an oral hearing.

6.In breach of the directions made by the Registrar of Civil Appeals in line with the above, the applicant failed to lodge skeleton submission 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. The hearing date on 1 April 2026 was therefore vacated and the applicant was debarred from lodging any written submission. We proceed to deal with the appeal on paper on the basis of the materials already filed with the Court.

Discussion

7.The relevant legal principles governing appeals in non‑refoulement cases are set out in Nupur Mst v Director of Immigration [2018] HKCA 524 at [14]. In particular, in an appeal against refusal of leave to apply for judicial review in non-refoulement cases, the Court of Appeal will 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.

8.The Court’s role is not to examine the decision maker’s decision afresh as if it were a fresh application for judicial review. Nor is an appeal 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 judge or was otherwise plainly wrong.

9.In this appeal, assertions by the applicant of fear, if refouled, do not constitute proper grounds of appeal: Re Saldua Dorothy Trifalgar [2022] HKCA 627 at [6]. In any event, the assertions have been considered by the Director and the Board. 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 is an error of law or procedural unfairness or irrationality in the decision of the Board: Re Kartini [2019] HKCA 1022 at [13].

10.The applicant claims that, if refouled, he would be harmed or killed by the Nigerian Government by reason of his affiliation with the Indigenous People of Biafra (“IPOB”). Whilst the Board accepted (giving the benefit of the doubt to the applicant) that he might face prosecution by reason of his association with IPOB, it was not satisfied on the evidence that he would face a real risk of the proscribed harm in the reasonably foreseeable future should he be refouled (Board’s Decision, [105]-[108]). Amongst other things, the applicant had been able to keep a “low-profile” as regards his IPOB membership, and to continue operating a business from 2018 until he left Nigeria (Board’s Decision, [109]).

11.These were factual findings open to the Board on the evidence, which the Judge canvassed in the Leave Decision. We see no basis for the Judge or this Court to interfere.

12.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.

13.The applicant advanced no viable grounds of appeal against the Judge’s decision, and there is no merit in the appeal. We therefore dismiss the appeal.

The applicant was not represented and did not appear