Obi Chinonso Stanley v. Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office

CACV 689 /2026, [2026] HKCA 1460

On appeal from [2026] HKCFI 3113

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 689 OF 2026

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 1571 OF 2022)

________________________

BETWEEN

________________________

________________________

J U D G M E N T

________________________

Hon Kwan VP (giving the Judgment of the Court):

Background

1.This is an appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge Martin Wong dated 12 June 2026[1] refusing to grant leave for the applicant to apply for judicial review against the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board (“the Board”) concerning his non‑refoulement claim.

2.The applicant is a national of Nigeria.  He arrived in Hong Kong in January 2019 and subsequently overstayed.  He was arrested by the police in October 2020 and lodged his non-refoulement claim on 26 October 2020.  His claim was made on the basis that, if refouled, he would be harmed or killed by (1) his creditor as he is unable to repay the loan; (2) the Muslims in Nigeria as he is a Christian; and (3) the Nigerian authorities as he is pro-independence. 

Decisions of the Director and the Board

3.By the Notice of Decision dated 16 August 2021, the Director of Immigration (“the Director”) rejected the applicant’s non-refoulement claim on all applicable grounds including torture risk[2], BOR 2 risk[3], BOR 3 risk[4] and persecution risk[5].  His appeal was dismissed by the Board on 11 November 2022[6].

The judge’s decision

4.The applicant filed a Form 86 on 28 December 2022 to seek leave to apply for judicial review against the decision of the Board.  His application was dismissed by the judge on 12 June 2026.

Grounds of appeal

5.In the notice of appeal filed on 24 June 2026, the applicant stated the following grounds of appeal:

(1)  The assessors reached the decisions wrongly because they used outdated and misleading country of origin information;

(2)  The decisions were unreasonable and unfair because the applicant’s right to life is not protected under Article 28 of the Basic law and Article 2 of the Bill of Rights.

6.In his written submissions, he reiterated the procedural history of his case and the problems he faced in Nigeria.  He also put forward the following contentions:

(1)  There are errors of law and procedural unfairness or irrationality in the judicial review.  The judge said that the court does not provide a further avenue of appeal in judicial review.  If the court could not redress a mistake from the Director or the Board, it should not ask the applicant to spend money for judicial review;

(2)  This is a clear case of unfair attitude shown by the court.  The assessors have failed to give enough weight to his argument before reaching the decision.  They failed to appreciate or give proper importance or weight to the presence of state acquiescence in his case;

(3)  The country of origin information used by the assessors is outdated and misleading.  The authorities should have representatives in the applicant’s country to update the information;

(4)  The killing of Christians in Nigeria had caught international attention. The issue of Nigerian security forces killing IPOB[7] members had been under discussion all over the world;

(5)  The applicant’s creditor is in APC[8] party which is the ruling party in Nigeria.  His creditor is going to use his official capacity and network to harm him if he returns to his home country.

Legal principles

7.The Court of Appeal’s general approach in dealing with appeals in non-refoulement cases is set out in Nupur Mst v Director of Immigration [2018] HKCA 524 at §14. 

Analysis and disposition

8.The legal principles applied by the judge of the Court of First Instance are well established and correct.  The court will not interfere with the decision of the Board by way of judicial review unless there are errors of law or procedural unfairness or irrationality in its decision.  The applicant’s grounds and submissions are just bare assertions without evidence in support.  In particular, he failed to provide any country of origin information and/or any credible evidence to refute the findings of the Board.  Thus, he failed to show any errors of law or procedural unfairness or irrationality in the Board’s decision.

9.He also failed to demonstrate that the judge had made errors of law or failed to take account of relevant matters already placed before the court or was otherwise plainly wrong.

10.Therefore, the appeal is devoid of merits and is dismissed accordingly.

The Applicant (Appellant), acting in person

[1]  [2026] HKCFI 3113

[2]  This refers to the risk of torture under Part VIIC of the Immigration Ordinance, Cap 115.

[3]  This refers to the risk of being arbitrarily deprived of life under Article 2 of section 8 of the Hong Kong Bill of Rights Ordinance, Cap 383.

[4]  This refers to risk of torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment under Article 3 of section 8 of the Hong Kong Bill of Rights Ordinance, Cap 383.

[5]  This refers to the risk of persecution with reference to the non-refoulement principle under Article 33 of the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees and its 1967 Protocol.

[6]  The Board’s Decision can be viewed in the following hyperlink:

https://legalref.judiciary.hk/doc/judg/html/vetted/other/en/2022/HCAL001571_2022_files/the_Board's_Decision.pdf

[7]  Indigenous People of Biafra, a separatist movement in Nigeria

[8]  All Progressives Congress