Re Igwemezie Vitalis Chukwudi

CACV 1222/2025, [2026] HKCA 1635

On appeal from [2025] HKCFI 5605

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 1222 OF 2025

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL 1168/2025)

____________________________

____________________________

____________________

J U D G M E N T

____________________

Hon K Yeung JA (giving the Judgment of the Court):

1.On 3 March 2026, this court (Barma JA and Keith Yeung J) handed down a judgment dismissing the applicant’s appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge KW Lung (the “Judge”) given on 10 December 2025 refusing to grant leave for the applicant to apply for judicial review against the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board (the “Board”) dismissing his appeal against the decision of the Director of Immigration (the “Director”) 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 applies, by a Notice of Motion filed on 11 March 2026, for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal.

4.In the Notice of Motion, the applicant complains, without elaboration nor particulars, that there were “errors of law and procedural unfairness or irrationality” in this Court’s judgment.

5.In the applicant’s written submissions dated 24 March 2026, he repeats the factual background on which his non-refoulement was based, and emphasises that his life would be in danger should he be refouled.  He asserts that the Director and the Board “reached their decisions wrongly in assessing” his claim, that he “discovered errors of law in [the Judge’s] judgment”.

6.Having considered the applicant’s Notice of Motion and 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.

7.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.

8.In any event, in neither the Notice of Motion nor his written submission has the applicant identified with any particulars or specificity any supposed error in our judgment, not to mention any ground that is reasonably arguable before the Court of Final Appeal.

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

10.For these reasons, the Notice of Motion filed on 11 March 2026 is dismissed.

The applicant acting in person