Chuks David v. Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office
|
CACV 338/2025, [2026] HKCA 698 On Appeal From [2025] HKCFI 1856 IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION COURT OF APPEAL CIVIL APPEAL NO.338 OF 2025 (ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO. 500 OF 2020) ________________________ BETWEEN
________________________
________________________ J U D G M E N T ________________________ Hon Anthony Chan JA (giving the Judgment of the Court) : Introduction 1.This is the Applicant’s appeal against the order of Deputy High Court Judge (Non-refoulement Claims) Philips Wong (“Judge”) dated 22 May 2025 refusing to grant leave to apply for judicial review of the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office (“Board”) dated 23 March 2020 (“Board’s Decision”) whereby the Board dismissed the Applicant’s appeal against the decision of the Director of Immigration (“Director”) dated 31 December 2018 (“Director’s Decision”). Background 2.The Applicant is a national of Nigeria. He lodged a non-refoulement claim with the Immigration Department on the basis that, if refouled, he would be harmed or killed by his uncle due to a land dispute. The Applicant’s non-refoulement claim was rejected by the Director’s Decision, and his appeal against it was rejected by the Board’s Decision. Details of the Applicant’s claim and the Board’s reasons for rejecting his appeal can be found in the Board’s Decision, the hyperlink to which can be found in the Form CALL-1 dated 22 May 2025 (“Form CALL-1”), [3]. 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 27 May 2025, the Applicant sought to appeal the Judge’s decision to this Court. For the grounds of appeal, the Applicant states that :
5.The Applicant lodged his written submissions on 18 March 2026. In the submissions, he reiterates his claim and that his life would be at risk if refouled, and his arguments can be summarised as follows :
6.Significantly, the Applicant did not identify any complaint against or any error made by the Judge in dismissing his application for leave to apply for judicial review. 7.At the hearing the Applicant said that his country is affected by extremists. His uncle is still on his trail. He begs to stay in Hong Kong. Legal Principles 8.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)). 9.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. Discussion and Disposition 10.In this case, no error of law or procedural unfairness or irrationality in the decision of the Board was detected by the Judge. 11.It is incumbent upon the Applicant to demonstrate with sufficient particulars and specificities that the Judge had erred in coming to his decision. In our view, the matters set out in the Applicant’s Notice of Appeal and written submissions are bare assertions. They lack substance and do not constitute any viable grounds of appeal. We see no basis to interfere with the Judge’s decision. 12.The Applicant’s appeal is devoid of merits. We dismiss it accordingly with no order as to costs.
The Applicant appeared in person |
Cases cited in this judgment