Iwegbuna Godwin Onochie v. Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office

CAMP 246/2025, [2026] HKCA 1886

On appeal from [2025] HKCFI 1153

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO 246 OF 2025

(ON AN INTENDED APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 3724 OF 2019)

________________________

BETWEEN

________________________

_____________________

J U D G M E N T

_____________________

Hon Kwan VP (giving the Judgment of the Court):

Background

1.On 1 April 2025, Deputy High Court Judge Philips Wong refused to grant extension of time for the applicant to apply for leave to bring judicial review against the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board (“the Board”) concerning his non-refoulement claim and dismissed the leave application[1].

2.On 19 May 2025, the applicant filed a summons to seek extension of time to appeal against that decision at the Court of First Instance.  The summons was dismissed by the judge on 29 August 2025[2]. The applicant filed a renewed application for extension of time to appeal with the Court of Appeal on 11 December 2025.

3.The applicant is a national of Nigeria.  He last entered Hong Kong as a visitor on 4 June 2011 and subsequently overstayed.  He was arrested by the police on 30 December 2011.  He raised his torture claim on 21 February 2012.  His claim was made on the basis that, if refouled, he would be killed by his boss because he had lost money of the boss.  In his non-refoulement claim raised on 7 November 2013, he also asserted that he would be harmed or killed by the Boko Haram because he is a Christian.

The decisions of the Director and the Board

4.By a Notice of Decision dated 22 October 2013, the Director of Immigration (“the Director”) rejected the applicant’s torture claim.  By a Notice of Decision dated 20 October 2017, the Director rejected the applicant’s non-refoulement claim under all applicable grounds including BOR 2 risk[3], BOR 3 risk[4] and persecution risk[5], except torture risk[6].  His appeal was dismissed by the Board on 19 March 2019[7].

The intended judicial review

5.On 13 December 2019, the applicant filed a Form 86 and an affidavit in HCAL 3724/2019 to seek leave to bring judicial review against the Board’s decision out of time.  The judge refused to grant extension of time and dismissed the leave application on 1 April 2025.

Grounds of appeal

6.On 5 September 2025, the applicant filed a notice of appeal (CACV 698/2025[8]) out of time against the judge’s decision.  He was directed by the Registrar of Civil Appeals to take out the present proceedings in CAMP 246/2025, which he did on 11 December 2025.  In his notice of appeal in CACV 698/2025, the applicant stated that there are errors of law or procedural unfairness in the judgment.  He asserted that the assessors did not consider state acquiescence but relied much on country of origin information which the applicant believed is misleading.

7.In his written submissions lodged on 28 December 2025 in support of his extension of time application, he reiterated the problems he would face in his home country and asserted that the Director and the Board failed to take into account relevant matters like state protection and relocation but based their findings on misleading country of origin information.

Analysis

8.In considering whether to extend time for appealing against a decision refusing leave to apply for judicial review, the court will take into account: (1) the length of delay; (2) the reasons for the delay; (3) the prospect of the intended appeal; and (4) the prejudice to the respondent if an extension of time were granted.

9.Pursuant to Order 53, rule 3(4) of the Rules of the High Court, Cap 4A, the applicant may appeal to the Court of Appeal against the judge’s order refusing leave within 14 days after such refusal.  The order was made on 1 April 2025 and the applicant was late by nearly 5 weeks when he took out the summons at the court below on 19 May 2025.

10.In the affidavit filed with the Court of First Instance on 19 May 2025, the applicant explained that he did not understand the court procedure and was not aware of the deadline for appeal.  Ignorance of the rules is not a satisfactory reason for the delay.  As the delay is not excusable, the applicant must show a real prospect of success on the merits to obtain an extension of time to appeal: Secretary for Justice v The Hong Kong & Yaumati Ferry Co Ltd [2001] 1 HKC 125.

11.The general principles regarding an appeal in a non‑refoulement case have been set out comprehensively by the Court of Appeal in Nupur Mst v Director of Immigration [2018] HKCA 524 at §14.

12.The applicant’s grounds and submissions are just bare assertions.  He failed to identify any mistakes in the judge’s decision.  He also failed to provide any reliable evidence to refute the findings of the Director and the Board. 

13.For the above reasons, there is no prospect of success in the intended appeal.  Therefore, we refuse to grant extension of time to appeal against the judge’s decision of 1 April 2025 and dismiss the summons filed on 11 December 2025.  It follows that the notice of appeal filed out of time without leave in CACV 698/2025 should be struck out and an order in those proceedings will be made accordingly.

The Applicant, acting in person