Ike Izunna Joel v. Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office

CACV 263/2025, [2026] HKCA 1064

On Appeal From [2025] HKCFI 1449

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 263 OF 2025

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 153 OF 2020)

________________________

_____________________

_______________

J U D G M E N T

_______________

Hon Chow JA (giving the Judgment of the Court):

1.On 29 April 2025, Deputy High Court Judge Levy (“the Judge”) made an order refusing to grant to the Applicant leave to apply for judicial review. The intended judicial review was against the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office dated 22 November 2019, whereby the Board dismissed the Applicant’s appeal against the decision of the Director of Immigration dated 25 June 2019 rejecting his non-refoulement claim.

2.On 19 November 2025, this Court gave its judgment (“the CA Judgment”) dismissing the Applicant’s appeal against the order of the Judge. The basic facts of this case and the Court’s reasons for dismissing the Applicant’s appeal have been set out in the CA Judgment and will not be repeated here.

3.By a Notice of Motion dated 1 December 2025, the Applicant applied for leave to appeal the CA Judgment to the Court of Final Appeal. In the Notice of Motion, the Applicant states the following:

“I would like to the Court of Final Appeal that there are error in the assessment of my claim. The assessors failed to attain the high standard of fairness required by the law. Therefore, I would want the decision be overturned and correct justice be given. I do not think the authorities did the right.” [sic]

4.In his written submissions dated 15 December 2025 lodged in support of the application, the Applicant repeats the factual basis of his non-refoulement claim. He also says he disagrees with the decisions of the Director and the Board, and makes some general allegations in respect of those decisions and the decision of the High Court.

5.Pursuant to paragraph 3 of Practice Direction 2.1, we determine the present application for leave to appeal on paper without an oral hearing.

6.Under s 22(1)(b) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance, Cap 484, an appeal shall lie to the Court of Final Appeal at the discretion of the Court of Appeal or the Court of Final Appeal in any civil cause or matter if, in the opinion of the Court of Appeal or the Court of Final Appeal (as the case may be), the question involved in the appeal is one which, by reason of its great general or public importance, or otherwise, ought to be submitted to the Court of Final Appeal for decision.

7.The Applicant’s complaints in the Notice of Motion are all general allegations without particulars or substance, and are plainly unsustainable. No question of great general or public importance involved in the intended appeal is identified in the Notice of Motion. We are unable to see any such question being involved in the intended appeal. The Applicant has not raised any viable ground of appeal against the CA Judgment. We are satisfied that the intended appeal has no reasonable prospect of success.

8.There is also no basis to grant leave to appeal on the “or otherwise” limb in s 22(1)(b) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance.

9.Accordingly, the application for leave to appeal is refused and the Notice of Motion is dismissed.

The Applicant, acting in person