Obi Clement Uche v. Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office

CACV 156/2026, [2026] HKCA 828

On Appeal From [2026] HKCFI 221

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 156 OF 2026

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL 2372 OF 2020)

________________________

________________________

_________________

J U D G M E N T

_________________

Hon Lisa Wong J (giving the Judgment of the Court):

Introduction

1.This is an appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge (Non-refoulement Claims) Vincent Lung (“Judge”) on 12 February 2026 refusing to grant the applicant, a national of Nigeria, leave to apply for judicial review (“Judge’s Decision”). The intended judicial review sought to quash the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board / adjudicator of the Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office (“Board”) dated 19 November 2020 (“Board’s Decision”), which upheld the decision of the Director of Immigration (“Director”) dated 17 April 2019 rejecting the applicant’s non-refoulement claim.

2.The applicant’s claim was made on the basis of a fear of being harmed or killed by his paternal uncle due to a land dispute. Details of the applicant’s background, the circumstances giving rise to his said alleged fear, the arguments advanced by him before the Board and the Board’s reasons for rejecting his appeal are all set out in the Board’s Decision[1]. For the grounds advanced by the applicant in support of his application for leave to apply for judicial review and the Judge’s reasons for refusal, see [8] – [11] of the Form CALL-1.  

Appeal to this Court

3.By the notice of appeal filed herein on 24 February 2026, the applicant appealed against the Judge’s Decision, essentially on the grounds (1) that his life was still in danger and (2) that the Director and the Board relied on misleading country of origin information.

4.As the applicant did not lodge any written submissions, the scheduled hearing of his appeal was vacated pursuant to the directions of the Court. We shall accordingly determine the appeal on the basis of the available documents and materials.

Legal principles

5.First, the primary decision-makers in a non-refoulement claim are the Director and the Board. They alone assess the evidence and find relevant facts. An application for leave for judicial review does not provide a further avenue of appeal. The court will not re-assess the non-refoulement claim. It will intervene by way of judicial review only for errors of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality.

6.Second, an appeal against a refusal of leave to apply for judicial review is not the occasion for the Court of Appeal to examine the decision of the Board afresh as if the appeal were a fresh application for leave for judicial review. This court is concerned with the decision of the judge at first instance, which it will consider in light of the grounds of appeal raised by the applicant. The Court of Appeal shall interfere only if the judge had erred in law, failed to take into account a relevant matter or was otherwise plainly wrong. If no such error is shown, the appeal should be dismissed.

7.In support, see Nupur Mst v Director of Immigration [2018] HKCA 524 at [14]; Re Md Shohel Sheak [2018] HKCA 714 at [13]; and Re Limbu Birkhaman [2019] HKCA 50 at [11].

Discussion

8.In the present case, while the Board accepted that the applicant’s father had inherited family land, which gave rise to a dispute with the applicant’s paternal uncle, the Board did not accept the rest of the applicant’s evidence. The Board therefore found no real risk of harm to the applicant upon refoulement. These are findings of fact open to the Board on the evidence it received and for the reasons it gave. The applicant has failed to show any or any reasonably arguable public law error in relation to the Board’s decision.

9.Equally, the applicant has not demonstrated any error in the Judge’s Decision. We are not satisfied that there is any error in the Judge’s Decision.

10.The applicant’s appeal is accordingly dismissed.

The applicant, unrepresented, acting in person