Ogu, Francis Iyke v. Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office

CACV 753/2025, [2026] HKCA 1467

On Appeal From [2025] HKCFI 3854

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 753 OF 2025

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO. 813 OF 2020)

____________________

BETWEEN

____________________

________________

JUDGMENT

________________

Hon Anthony Chan JA (giving the Judgment of the Court) :

1.On 11 May 2026, this Court handed down a Judgment ([2026] HKCA 707) (“Judgment”) dismissing the Applicant’s appeal against the order of Deputy High Court Judge (Non-refoulement Claims) YW Hew (“Judge”) dated 5 September 2025 refusing leave to the Applicant to apply for judicial review.  The Applicant had sought to review the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board (“Board”) dismissing his appeal against the decision of the Director of Immigration (“Director”) rejecting his non-refoulement claim.

2.The facts and issues in the Applicant’s appeal, as well as the reasons for dismissing it, were set out in the Judgment.  We will not repeat them here.

3.The Applicant now applies, by a Notice of Motion filed on 15 May 2026, for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal (“CFA”).  In the Notice of Motion, the Applicant stated that :

“I would like to inform to Court of Appeal. There are Some Error in my law maker decision. I am disagree with the Judgment Given by the Court of First Instance and the decision made by the both Respondent’s. These decision is very unfair to me and it’s makes me liable to Remove from Hong Kong to a Risk State in my home country where my life is not safe. I have Severe Problems in my home country. I would like to Requesting for Reconsider my case.”

4.The Applicant filed written submissions on 29 May 2026 in which he made numerous unparticularised allegations of deficiencies against the decisions of the Director, the Board and the Judge.  He also repeated allegations of the unreasonableness and irrationality of the decisions of the Director and the Board, which this Court rejected in the Judgment, [9].

5.Having considered the Notice of Motion and written submissions, we see no reason to depart from the usual practice of determining an application of this type on paper.

6.The matters raised by the Applicant do not constitute proper grounds for granting leave to appeal to the CFA.  He has not raised any question of great general or public importance for the CFA to consider, as required under s.22(1)(b) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance, Cap 484.  Further, there is no basis for granting leave on the “otherwise” limb under s.22(1)(b).

7.Neither the Notice of Motion nor the written submissions identified any error in the Judgment.  The Applicant’s submissions are a word-for-word copy of the submissions filed by the applicant in CACV 673/2025 on 3 February 2026.  The background and basis of that applicant’s non-refoulement claim and those of the present Applicant are totally different.  Template complaints of this kind simply do not advance the Applicant’s case, least of all support an application for leave to appeal to the CFA.  There is no merit in this application.

8.For these reasons, the Notice of Motion is dismissed with no order as to costs.

The Applicant acting in person