Onyekwelu Chidubem Christopher v. Director of Immigration
|
HCAL 1346/2022 [2026] HKCFI 5848 IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST No. 1346 of 2022 BETWEEN
Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review NOTIFICATION of the Judge’s decision (Ord. 53 r. 3) Following;
Order by Deputy High Court Judge K.W. Lung: Leave to apply for Judicial Review be refused. Observations for the Applicant: THE APPLICATION 1.This is the applicant’s application for leave to apply for judicial review of the Director’s Decision dated 14 October 2022 (“the Director’s Decision”) refusing his subsequent claim on the applicable risks[1], which had been determined in his previous application (“the previous claim”). The applicant had wrongly put down the date of the Director’s Decision as 13 October 2022 in Form 86. This error should be rectified and Form 86 should be amended accordingly. 2.The Director of Immigration (“the Director”) rejected his subsequent claim under the circumstances and for reasons as set out below. The procedural history 3.The applicant is a national of Nigeria. He is an illegal immigrant. He lodged a non-refoulement claim with the Director of Immigration (“the Director”). 4.The Director dismissed his claim because it was not substantiated. He appealed to Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office (“the Board”). The Board agreed with the Director and dismissed his appeal on 12 December 2019. 5.On 12 March 2020, he filed Form 86 with the High Court for leave to apply for judicial review of the Board’s Decision. 6.On 8 September 2021, he applied for discontinuance of his application, which was approved by the Court of First Instance. 7.By letter dated 7 July 2022, the applicant applied to the Director for making a subsequent claim for non-refoulement protection. By the Director’s Decision, the Director refused his application. The subsequent claim application 8.Under section 37ZO of the Ordinance, he has to satisfy the immigration officer that there has been a significant change of circumstances since the previous claim was finally determined and such change of circumstances, when taken together with the material previously submitted, would give the subsequent claim a realistic prospect of success. 9.Upon the immigration officer’s advice, he had submitted additional materials in support of his application. 10.He relied on the reasons for his previous claim, viz. he might be harmed or killed by the Agbariji villagers or his half-brother, Romanus over a land dispute, and the fact that there has been escalation of inter-communal violence between herders and farmers communities in the village he lived. The immigration officer found that the first reason had been adjudicated upon rejected by the Board, and the second reason is not valid because there was no evidence that the conflicts between the herders and farmers caused any harm to him personally. The applicant has also submitted that he had married in Hong Kong and had 2 children, one has speech impairment, the other is autistic. The immigration office found no medical evidence in support of his children’s health conditions; and further found that this issue is irrelevant to his subsequent claim application. 11.The immigration officer did not accept that the applicant’s subsequent claim application satisfied the conditions under section 37ZO of the Ordinance and he refused his application. Application for leave to apply for judicial review of the Director’s Decision 12.The applicant filed Form 86 on 28 November 2022 for judicial review of the Director’s Decision. 13.In the affirmation in support of his application, the applicant did not raise any specific reason to challenge the Director’s Decision. He has attached a copy of the Director’s Decision to his affidavit. Discussion 14.The role of this Court is supervisory, meaning that it ensures that the Director complied with the public law requirements in coming to his Decision. The Court will not usurp his fact-finding power. See TK v Michael C Jenkins Esq and Director of Immigration [2013] 1 HKC 526, §40 and Nupur Mst v Director of Immigration [2018] HKCA 524 §14 (1). 15.The Court will bear in mind that the Director’s Decision should be examined with rigorous examination and anxious scrutiny. The applicant has not raised any good reason to challenge the Director’s Decision, which appears to bear no error in law or procedural irregularity, or is otherwise irrational. 16.The applicant fails to show that he has any realistic chance of success in his intended judicial review of the Director’s Decision. 17.I dismiss his application for leave to apply for judicial review of the Director’s Decision. Dated the 21st day of October 2026
Where leave to apply has been granted, Applicants and their legal advisers are reminded of their obligation to reconsider the merits of their application in the light of the Respondent’s evidence
Form CALL-1 [1] The applicable risks are:
|
Summaries and metadata are generated from the judgment. Report an error
Cases cited in this judgment