Case Document

100%

CACV 435/2025, [2026] HKCA 1697

On Appeal From [2025] HKCFI 2197

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 435 OF 2025

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO. 511 OF 2020)

________________________

BETWEEN

	EKWE CHIDIEBERE KINGSLEY	Applicant
	and
	TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD/ NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE	Putative Respondent
	and
	DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION	Putative
		Interested Party

_____________________

Before:

Hon Poon CJHC and Ng J in Court

Date of Written Submissions:	8 May 2026
Date of Judgment:	25 September 2026

_____________________

J U D G M E N T

_____________________

The Court :

1.By a Judgment dated 16 April 2026, this Court dismissed the applicant’s appeal against the order of Deputy High Court Judge (Non-refoulement Claims) Philips Wong dated 12 June 2025, refusing him leave to apply for judicial review in respect of his non-refoulement claims.

2.By a Notice of Motion dated 27 April 2026, the applicant applied to us for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal under section 22(1) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance (Cap 484)[1] on the ground that (sic):

“I would like to inform the court of final appeal my dismay and objection with the decision and Judgement of 16^th April 2026 as to reverse and revisit the Judgement because my life is still in danger. Both state protection and internal relocation are not available for me. The Judgment is not fair to me and I want to appeal against it.”

3.In his written submissions lodged on 8 May 2026, the applicant repeated his claims and essentially raised that the Board and the Director did not consider the risk of persecution, risk of torture, and his BOR2 risk, that the assessors of the decisions relied on outdated country of origin information, and that his life will be in danger if he is returned to his home country because that internal relocation and state protection is not available to him.

4.The Notice of Motion does not meet the statutory threshold for leave to be granted because it fails to (a) state any error in our judgment; (b) raise any viable ground of appeal that is reasonably arguable; or (c) identify any question of great general or public importance involved in the intended appeal; and there is no basis to grant leave to appeal on the “or otherwise” limb.

5.In consequence, we refuse to grant leave and dismiss the Notice of Motion.

(Jeremy Poon)
Chief Judge of the
High Court

(Peter Ng)
Judge of the Court of
First Instance

The applicant, unrepresented, acting in person

[1] Section 22(1)(b) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance provides that an appeal shall lie to the Court of Final Appeal at the discretion of the Court of Appeal or the Court of Final Appeal in any civil cause or matter if, in the opinion of the Court of Appeal or the Court of Final Appeal, as the case may be, the question involved in the appeal is one which, by reason of its great general or public importance, or otherwise, ought to be submitted to the Court of Final Appeal for decision.

Summaries and metadata are generated from the judgment. Report an error

Cites 1 case

Cases cited in this judgment

Ekwe Chidiebere Kingsley v. Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office

[2025] HKCFI 2197 · High Court CFI

12 Jun 2025

Other Judgments in This Case

Further hearings and rulings under CACV 435/2025

Ekwe Chidiebere Kingsley v. Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office

Court of Appeal

16 Apr 2026

Ekwe Chidiebere Kingsley v. Torture Claims Appeal Board/ Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office