Onwuegbuchu Patrickben Azubuike v. Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office

CACV 261/2026, [2026] HKCA 1110

On Appeal From [2026] HKCFI 1003

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 261 OF 2026

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 1317 OF 2025)

________________________

BETWEEN

________________________

________________________

J U D G M E N T

________________________

Hon Winnie Tsui J (giving the Judgment of the Court):

Introduction

1.This is an appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge K.W. Lung (“Judge”)  on 3 March 2026 refusing to grant leave to the applicant to apply for judicial review against the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board/adjudicator of the Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office (“Board”)  dated 12 March 2025. In that decision, the Board upheld the decision of the Director of Immigration (“Director”)  dated 13 December 2024 rejecting the applicant’s non-refoulement claim.

Background

2.The applicant is a national of Nigeria born in 1984 and his claim was made on the basis that if he returned to Nigeria, the Ebubeagu Organization (a controversial regional security outfit under the control of the Imo State’s Governor, Hope Uzodimma)  would harm or kill him due to his participation and leadership role in the Otulu Youth Community (“OYC”).  Details of the applicant’s background, the basis of his claim and arguments advanced before the Board as well as the Board’s reasons for rejecting his appeal are all set out in the Board’s decision: see [4] of the Form CALL-1.  The Judge has set out the grounds advanced by the applicant in support of the application and his reasons for refusal of the application: see [11] – [16] of the Form CALL-1. 

Appeal to this Court

3.On 17 March 2026, the applicant filed his Notice of Appeal against the Judge’s decision.  His stated ground of appeal was, essentially, that he would face persecution risk if refouled.  The applicant’s reasoning was that his enemy, the Governor of Imo State, was still in power, that the Ebubeagu militants under the control of the Governor were still killing youths, and that they were still searching for him. 

4.The applicant has lodged written submission in which he repeated his background, the procedural history of his case and the basis of his claim for non-refoulement protection.  He also stated that the decisions lacked fairness, that the decision-makers relied on misleading country of origin information posted on Facebook by the Nigerian government in power, that there are no human rights in Nigeria, that the opposition are locked up without due process, that the Director and the Board failed to conduct proper investigation or to keep a representative on ground in his country, and that there is no state protection or internal relocation options available to him.  

5.At the hearing, the applicant stated that the problems were still ongoing with the government and the youths. 

Discussion

6.In assessing the merits of the appeal, we shall have regard to the legal principles which this Court has adopted in dealing with appeals in non-refoulement cases: 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].  In particular, the role of the Court in a judicial review is not to provide a further avenue of appeal.  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.  In the determination of an appeal against the refusal of leave by the Court of First Instance, the Court of Appeal will 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.  It is not the role of this Court to examine the decision of the Board afresh as if the appeal were a fresh application for judicial review.

7.In the present case, the Board found that there was no real risk of harm upon refoulement as alleged.  Although it accepted that the applicant was a member of the OYC and that the Ebubeagu had been involved in human rights abuses and a random attack on youths returning from a wedding, it did not accept that the applicant was targeted by the Ebubeagu or that the applicant remained in Hong Kong for this alleged reason.  The Board was of the view that the applicant had plainly fabricated the basis of his claim, which in turn would not substantiate any risk of harm alleged by the applicant.  These are findings of fact open to the Board based on the evidence it received and for the reasons it gave.  The applicant has failed to show any reasonably arguable public law error in relation to the Board’s decision.  As for the ground advanced relating to human rights, it consists of a mere general and bald assertion and it does not constitute a viable ground of appeal: see Re Salim Ahmed[2020] HKCA 244 at [20].

8.Equally, the applicant has not been able to demonstrate any error in the decision of the Judge or advance any viable ground of appeal against the Judge’s decision.  We are not satisfied that there is any error in the Judge’s decision.

9.The applicant’s appeal is accordingly dismissed.

The Applicant appeared in person