Re Onwuegbuchu Patrickben Azubuike

CACV 261/2026, [2026] HKCA 1717

On Appeal From [2026] HKCA 1110

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 261 OF 2026

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 1317 OF 2025)

________________________

________________________

_______________

J U D G M E N T

_______________

Hon Winnie Tsui J (giving the Judgment of the Court):

1.This is an application for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal (“CFA”). The applicant is a Nigerian national whose claim for non-refoulement protection in Hong Kong was rejected by the Director of Immigration and by the Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office (“Board”). His application for leave to apply for judicial review of the Board’s decision was dismissed by the Court of First Instance. His appeal against that decision was dismissed by this Court in our judgment dated 25 June 2026.

2.By Notice of Motion filed on 9 July 2026, the applicant seeks leave to appeal against our judgment to the CFA. In that document, the applicant stated that there is an error of law because misleading country of origin information was used to assess his claim and there is no state protection available for him if refouled.

3.In his written submissions lodged on 23 July 2026, the applicant asserts that he would face persecution as his enemies are related to the state, that the militants were still killing youths and still searching for him, that the assessors of his claim did not conduct adequate research, that the assessors relied on outdated and misleading country of origin information, that he is a target of his enemies, that the assessors did not have a representative in his home country reporting to them about what is going on, that he has human rights, and that internal relocation is not feasible.

4.There is no reason for us to depart from the usual practice of determining an application for leave to appeal on the basis of the available materials without an oral hearing, as set out in paragraph 3 of Practice Direction 2.1.

5.We take the view that this application ought to be dismissed because the applicant has not shown that the intended appeal raises any question which, by reason of its great general or public importance, or otherwise, ought to be submitted to the CFA for decision (which is the condition for giving leave to appeal under section 22(1)(b) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance, Cap 484), and also because he has failed to show any prospects of success in the intended appeal.

6.Accordingly, the Notice of Motion is dismissed.

The Applicant, unrepresented, acting in person