Re Elechukwu Okechukwu Victor

CACV 761/2026, [2026] HKCA 1740

On appeal from [2026] HKCFI 3233

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 761 OF 2026

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL 710/2022)

____________________________

____________________________

___________________

J U D G M E N T

___________________

Hon Alex Lee J (giving the Judgment of the Court):

1.This is an appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge To (“the Judge”) given on 5 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 5 January 2021 (“the Board’s Decision”) dismissing the applicant’s appeal against the decision of the Director of Immigration dated 16 April 2020 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]-[7] of the Leave Decision.

Appeal to this court

4.In a Notice of Appeal dated 21 July 2026, the applicant contended that he would face hardship should he be refouled.  He also claimed that the assessors of his claim were biased, and that there was an “error of law and procedural unfairness”.

5.By written submissions dated 11 August 2026, the applicant repeated his personal background and the factual basis to his claim, and contended, inter alia, that his life would be in danger at the hands of his uncle Usman upon refoulement.

6.We heard the appeal on 7 September 2026, at which the applicant appeared in person.  At the hearing, the applicant stated that he had nothing to add to the matters already set out in the documents he filed with the court. 

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.Concerning the present appeal, we note that the applicant’s leave application in the Court below was seriously out of time (by over one year and six months).  The Judge, after considering the reasons proffered by the applicant, held that there was no good reason to extend time for the applicant (see Leave Decision at [6]).  Before us, the applicant has failed to identify any error on the part of the Judge and thus failed to raise any viable ground of appeal.  Besides, he has provided no good reason for extension of time before us and we can see none either.  On this basis alone, the appeal should be dismissed.

9.Nevertheless, we have considered the points advanced by the applicant in his submissions.  We note not only that they are bare assertions unsupported by particulars or evidence, but also that the Board considered the applicant’s claimed fear of harm from his uncle to be unsubstantiated on the evidence, as from past incidents his uncle had only targeted his grievance towards the applicant’s father rather than the applicant himself.  Moreover, the Board was unconvinced on the evidence that he was a person wanted by the South African government.  Thus, there was no real risk of harm or ill-treatment upon the applicant’s return to South Africa.  In any event, the Board took the view that there was adequate state protection and suitable options of internal relocation available to the applicant in order to minimise the risk of harm, if any.  These were findings open to the Board, and we see no basis to interfere.  

10.As such, the applicant has 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 discussed above, 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, unrepresented, appearing in person