Obi Clement Uche v. Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office

CACV 156/2026, [2026] HKCA 1941

On Appeal From [2026] HKCFI 221

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 156 OF 2026

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 2372 OF 2020)

________________________

BETWEEN

________________________

_____________________

JUDGMENT

_____________________

Hon Lisa Wong 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 21 May 2026.

2.By Notice of Motion filed on 5 June 2026, the applicant seeks leave to appeal against our judgment to the CFA.  In that document, the applicant stated that there are errors of law and unfairness in the decision, but he did not give particulars of the alleged errors. 

3.The applicant lodged written submissions which were received by the court on 18 June 2026.  Those submissions largely repeated the basis of his non-refoulement claim and his general criticisms of the decisions below, including application of outdated and misleading country of origin information, exclusion from consideration of his human rights, and how state protection and internal relocation would not be available or viable. 

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