Samuel Ebere Uzoigwe v. Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office

CACV 754/2025, [2026] HKCA 787

On appeal from [2025] HKCFI 4063

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 754 OF 2025

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 2992 OF 2019)

__________________________

__________________________

________________

JUDGMENT

________________

The Court:

INTRODUCTION

1.This is the applicant’s appeal against the order of Deputy High Court Judge To (“the Judge”) dated 9 September 2025^[1](“the Order”) refusing to grant leave to apply for judicial review of the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office (“the Board”) dated 26 September 2019 (“the Board’s Decision”) whereby the Board dismissed his appeal against the decision of the Director of Immigration (“the Director”) dated 10 January 2019 (“the Director’s Decision”).

BACKGROUND

2.The applicant is a national of Nigeria.  On 27 November 2018, he lodged a non-refoulement claim on the basis that, if refouled, he would be harmed or killed by Senator Hope Uzodima and/or members of the People’s Democratic Party (“PDP”) for being an active youth leader of a rival political party, All Progressives Grand Alliance (“APGA”) in Nigeria, as well as by his former business partner over a monetary dispute in Niger.  The applicant’s non-refoulement claim was rejected by the Director, and the appeal against it was rejected by the Board.  Details of the applicant’s claim and the Board’s reasons for rejecting the applicant’s appeal can be found in the Board’s Decision, the hyperlink to which can be found in the Form CALL-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 17 September 2025, the applicant sought to appeal the Judge’s decision to this court.  For the grounds of appeal, the applicant stated that (sic) “there is error of law in the Judgement as country of origin information was not properly investigated. The Assessor did not consider properly the state protection and relocation.”

5.The appeal was scheduled to be heard on 24 February 2026. The applicant has failed to lodge skeleton argument in support of his appeal in accordance with the directions given by the Registrar of Civil Appeals on 27 December 2025. 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.  The applicant was informed of the same by the court’s letter dated 27 January 2026.

6.The applicant only lodged his skeleton submissions on 6 February 2026, which we will consider the same out of caution.  In the submissions, he reiterated his claim and that his life would be at risk if refouled, and his arguments can be summarised as follows:-

(1)     The assessors did not give proper attention to the issues of state protection and internal relocation;

(2)     There were errors of law in the Judge’s assessment of his claim;

(3)     His torture risk was not considered properly;

(4)     The Director and the Board relied on misleading country of origin information when assessing his claim and showed an unfair attitude;

(5)     He will be harmed or killed by if returned to Nigeria for being a Christian.

DISCUSSION & DISPOSITION

7.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)).

8.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.

9.In the present case, the Judge found no error of law or procedural unfairness or irrationality in the decision of the Board.  The mere assertions as stated in the grounds of appeal are not substantiated with any specific reasons as to how they apply to the present appeal.

10.Further, the applicant has never raised the issue of religious persecution for being a Christian in Nigeria during his process before the Director or the Board.  It is improper to the applicant to raise this issue at this stage.  In any event, it was unsubstantiated and lack substance and therefore has no merit.

11.It is incumbent on the applicant to point out the Judge's errors with sufficient particulars and specifics.  In our view, the matters set out in the applicant’s notice of appeal and written submissions failed to identify any error on the part of the Judge. They do not constitute any viable grounds of appeal and lack substance. We see no basis to interfere with the Judge’s decision. 

12.For the above reasons, the applicant’s appeal is devoid of merits.  We dismiss it accordingly

The Applicant, unrepresented, acted in person

^[1] [2025] HKCFI 4063