Emezuo Emeka Ben v. Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office

CACV 429/2026, [2026] HKCA 1104

On Appeal From [2026] HKCFI 2208

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 429 OF 2026

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 235 OF 2021)

________________________

BETWEEN

________________________

________________________

J U D G M E N T

________________________

Hon Cheng J (giving the Judgment of the Court):

1.This is the applicant’s appeal against the order of Deputy High Court Judge Bruno Chan (“the Judge”)  dated 21 April 2026 ([2026] HKCFI 2208)  (“the Leave Decision”)  dismissing his application for leave to apply for judicial review (“the Leave Application”)  against the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office (“the Board”)  dated 11 February 2021 (“the Board’s Decision”), whereby the Board dismissed his appeal against the decisions of the Director of Immigration dated 22 November 2013 and 27 November 2018, refusing his non-refoulement claim.

2.The applicant is a national of Nigeria.  The basis of his non-refoulement claim is that, if refouled, he would be harmed or killed by his paternal uncle over their land dispute in his home village.  His background, the basis of his claim and arguments advanced before the Board as well as the Board’s reasons for rejecting his appeal were set out in the Board’s Decision: see [1] – [7] of the Leave Decision.  The applicant was legally represented at the hearing before the Board. The Board found that the applicant’s evidence regarding material aspects of his case were conflicting and unbelievable, and that the applicant was not subject to the risk of harm alleged. It went on to find that even if the applicant’s claims were to be accepted, internal relocation was a viable and reasonable option, and that the dispute between the applicant and his uncle was a purely private matter that did not involve the state.

3.The Judge set out his reasons for refusing the Leave Application at [8] – [13] of the Leave Decision.  The Judge found that the applicant’s grounds were bare and vague assertions made without reference to the facts of his case. The Judge also observed that the applicant did not explain the allegation that he was not given a fair opportunity to put forward his case or submissions, when he was in fact legally represented throughout his appeal to the Board, including at the hearing before the Board.

4.By the Notice of Appeal filed on 27 April 2026, the applicant claimed:

“… the grounds of this appeal are that the Plaintiff will face hardship if he is to return back to his home country and that the Torture Claims Appeal Board has significantly relied on the source of news which is not officially recognized, or it is simply hearsay.  They have also relied on some cases which are outdated considering the dramatic changes. The lack of credible source of information has resulted in them making groundless speculations.” (sic)

5.In support of his appeal, the applicant also lodged written submissions on 19 May 2026.  In those submissions, the applicant cited various case authorities on the high standards of fairness and procedural fairness without condescending upon particulars as to how they are relevant to his individual case.

6.The hearing of the appeal was scheduled for 15 June 2026.  However, the applicant failed to appear. Calls to his number also went unanswered. In the circumstances, we will determine the appeal on the basis of the written materials submitted.

DISCUSSION

7.The relevant legal principles governing appeals in non-refoulement cases are set out in Nupur Mst v Director of Immigration [2018] HKCA 524 at [14].

8.In particular, in an appeal against refusal of leave to apply for judicial review in non-refoulement cases, 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.  The Court’s role is not to examine the decision maker’s decision afresh as if it were a fresh application for judicial review.  See Nupur Mst v Director of Immigration [2018] HKCA 524 at [14(6)].

9.We see no merit in the applicant’s contentions.  Nowhere in his Notice of Appeal did the applicant identify any error committed by the Judge with specific particulars.  His assertions against the Board’s Decision are general and bare allegations unsupported by reference to the facts of his case.  General assertions of fear if refouled do not constitute proper grounds of appeal: Re Saldua Dorothy Trifalgar [2022] HKCA 627 at [6].  As the Judge noted, there was no error of law or any procedural unfairness in the Board’s Decision: see [12] of the Leave Decision. There is no viable ground of appeal and we see no basis to interfere with the Leave Decision.

10.For the above reasons, the applicant’s appeal against the Leave Decision has no merit and is dismissed.

The Applicant, unrepresented, was absent.