Anyim Egbert Umunna v. Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office
|
CACV 703/2026, [2026] HKCA 1509 On Appeal From [2026] HKCFI 3109 IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION COURT OF APPEAL CIVIL APPEAL NO 703 OF 2026 (ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 1542 OF 2022) __________________________ BETWEEN
__________________________
________________ J U D G M E N T ________________ Hon Mimmie Chan J (giving the Judgment of the Court): 1.This is an appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge (Non-refoulement Claims) Martin Wong (“the Judge”) given on 12 June 2026[1] (“the Leave Decision”) refusing to grant leave for the applicant to apply for judicial review. The intended judicial review was against the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board/adjudicator of the Non-Refoulement Claims Petition Office (“the Board”) dated 31 August 2022 (“the Board’s Decision”) dismissing the applicant’s appeal against the decision of the Director of Immigration dated 19 September 2018 rejecting the applicant’s non-refoulement claim. 2.The applicant’s background, the basis of his claim and the Board’s reasons in reaching the Board’s Decision have been set out therein[2] as well as by the Judge in the Leave Decision at [3], which will not be repeated. 3.After considering the documents filed by the applicant as well as the oral submissions he made at the hearing of the leave application, the Judge dismissed the application for the reasons stated at [4]-[10] of the Leave Decision. Appeal to this court 4.In a Notice of Appeal dated 26 June 2026, the applicant stated, without elaboration or particulars, that he would face hardship if he were refouled, and that the assessors of his claim did not consider the “persecution risk” nor did they properly consider “Article 2 of the Bill of Rights”. 5.By written submissions dated 20 July 2026, the applicant repeated his personal background and the factual basis to his claim. He stated that he was dissatisfied with the “assessors” of his claim and that the Board had relied on “outdated and misleading Country of Origin information posted on facebook by Muslim government of Nigeria”. He further claimed that internal relocation “would not be feasible” for him. 6.We heard the appeal on 18 August 2026, at which the applicant appeared in person. At the hearing, the applicant submitted that the situation in his country was getting worse, and that he wished to submit further documents to prove that his life was still in danger there. As those documents have not been considered by the Judge in the Court below, we will not permit the applicant to adduce them in this appeal, and we will determine the appeal on the basis of the materials already filed. Discussion 7.As this court has often stated, an appeal to the Court of Appeal is not a fresh application for judicial review. It is necessary to identify some error on the part of the judge that would justify this court in intervening: see Nupur Mst v Director of Immigration [2018] HKCA 524 at [14]. 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. An appeal is not the occasion for regurgitating arguments advanced and rejected by the judge or for running arguments which could and should have been raised but were not raised before the judge. In the determination of an appeal, the Court of Appeal focuses on the decision of the judge and the court will only reverse that decision if an appellant could demonstrate that the judge made errors of law or failed to take account of relevant matters already placed before the court or was otherwise plainly wrong. 8.The applicant has failed to identify any error on the part of the Judge and thus failed to raise any viable ground of appeal. The points advanced by the applicant were bare assertions unsupported by particulars or evidence. 9.In the present case, the Board afforded the applicant the benefit of the doubt in that it accepted that he was a member of the Indigenous People of Biafra (“IPOB”; a group which the Nigerian government has designated as a terrorist group) and that on occasions he had been arrested for his involvement with IPOB (although he has never been charged for an offence). The Board considered, however, that the applicant was an untruthful witness who had fabricated evidence to bolster his claim, and it did not accept that the applicant played a leadership role in IPOB, nor accordingly that a real risk of serious harm would befall him should he be refouled. These were findings open to the Board, and were sufficiently canvassed and considered by the Judge in the Leave Decision at [4]-[10]. We see no basis to interfere. 10.The applicant has accordingly failed to demonstrate how the Board had acted unlawfully or procedurally unfairly in reaching its Decision, or how such Decision could be said to be Wednesbury unreasonable. 11.As we have noted, the applicant advanced no viable grounds of appeal against the Judge’s decision. There is therefore no merit in the appeal and we dismiss the appeal accordingly.
The applicant appearing in person [2] https://legalref.judiciary.hk/doc/judg/html/vetted/other/en/2022/HCAL001542_2022_files/the_Board's_Decision.pdf |