Ogu, Francis Iyke v. Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office

CACV 753/2025, [2026] HKCA 707

On Appeal From [2025] HKCFI 3854

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO.753 OF 2025

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO. 813 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)  YW Hew (“Judge”)  dated 5 September 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 4 March 2020 (“Board’s Decision”)  whereby the Board dismissed the Applicant’s appeal against the decision of the Director of Immigration (“Director”)  dated 27 July 2018 (“Director’s Decision”)  rejecting his non-refoulement claim.

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 the Niger Delta Frontier Force (“NDFF”), and also by Muslims for being a Christian.  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 the Applicant’s appeal can be found in the Board’s Decision, the hyperlink to which can be found in the Form CALL-1 dated 5 September 2025 (“Form CALL-1”), [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 seeks to appeal the Judge’s decision to this Court.  For the grounds of appeal, the applicant states that :

“I am disagree with the decision maker authorities. The decision made by the Director of Immigration, As well as the decision made by the Adjudicator of the Torture claim Appeal Board. There is no proper investigation in my claim. My life still in danger in my home land.” (sic)

5.In the Applicant’s skeleton argument lodged on 18 March 2026, apart from referring to the basis of his non-refoulement claim, the Applicant argues that :

(1)  the Director had failed to appreciate or attach proper importance or weight to the presence of state acquiescence in his case;

(2)  the Board acted unreasonably and with procedural unfairness by placing too much reliance on the Country of Origin information (“COI”)  but failed to take into account his personal background and experience;

(3)  the Director failed to place sufficient weight on the COI which supported the fact that the police in his country would not be able to protect him;

(4)  The decisions of the Director and the Board are unreasonable and irrational in the public law sense or are the result of procedural errors or unfairness;

(5)  The Director and the Board relied on web news which were not officially recognized and there was no proper investigation of his claims. 

6.At the hearing, the Applicant said that the main reason that he is pursued by NDFF is that this group is fighting the Nigerian Government for the oil deposit.  They threatened the Applicant that if he does not join them they will kill him.  The Applicant is also threatened by Muslim fundamentalists, some of them work hand in hand with the Nigerian Government and create insecurity.  The Applicant will eventually go back to his country, but he wants some time to see if things will normalize. 

Legal Principles

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, COI, 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

9.In this case, no error of law or procedural unfairness or irrationality in the decision of the Board was detected by the Judge.

10.It is incumbent on the Applicant to point out with sufficient particulars and specificities the errors said to be made by the Judge. In our view, the matters set out in the Notice of Appeal and skeleton argument of the Applicant do not identify any such error.  They lack substance and do not constitute any viable grounds of appeal.  We see no basis to interfere with the Judge’s decision. 

11.The Applicant’s appeal is devoid of merits.  We dismiss it accordingly with no order as to costs.

The Applicant appeared in person