Re: EJEBU IFEANYI CYPRIAN

CACV 303/2023, [2026] HKCA 1212

On appeal from [2023] HKCFI 2387

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 303 OF 2023

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL 1472/2019)

-------------------------------------

-------------------------------------

___________________

J U D G M E N T

___________________

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

1.On 29 September 2025, this court (Chu VP and Barma JA) handed down a judgment dismissing the applicant’s appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge Bruno Chan given on 21 September 2023 refusing to grant leave for the applicant to apply for judicial review. The applicant had sought to review the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board (“the Board”) dismissing his appeal against the decision of the Director of Immigration rejecting his non‑refoulement claim.

2.The facts and issues in the applicant’s appeal, as well as the court’s reasons for dismissing it, are set out in our judgment.[1]  We will not repeat them here.  

3.The applicant subsequently applied, by a Notice of Motion filed on 6 October 2025, for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal.  In the Notice of Motion, the applicant contended inter alia that the Board acted unlawfully “in reaching decisions when they decided … Nigeria is not a risk state”, and that it did not pay “proper attention … to state protection [and] internal relocation”.  

4.In his written submissions lodged on 17 October 2025, the applicant repeated the factual background to his claim, as well as the basis which allegedly gave rise to his fear of harm upon refoulement to Nigeria.  He also repeated his disagreement with the decision of the Board.

5.Having considered the applicant’s Notice of Motion and his written submissions, we see no reason to depart from the usual practice of determining an application of this kind on the papers.  We have, therefore, determined the applicant’s application on the basis of the documents filed.

6.The matters stated by the applicant do not constitute grounds for granting leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal. The applicant has failed to identify any question of great general or public importance for the Court of Final Appeal to determine, as required by section 22(1)(b) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance, Cap 484.  Nor is any such question apparent to us from the matters he has raised.

7.The Notice of Motion does not identify any supposed error in our judgment and it raises no ground that is reasonably arguable before the Court of Final Appeal.

8.We also do not see any basis for granting leave on the “otherwise” limb under section 22(1)(b).

9.For these reasons, the Notice of Motion dated 6 October 2025 is dismissed.

The applicant acting in person