Case Detail

HCAL 463/2020

[2025] HKCFI 6429

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST

NO 463 OF 2020

________________________

BETWEEN

	EZIOKWU CHRISTIAN	Applicant
	and
	Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office	Putative Respondent
	and
	Director of Immigration	Putative Interested Party

________________________

Before:

DHCJ Levy in Chambers (Open to the Public)

Date of Hearing:	27 November 2025
Date of Judgment:	27 November 2025

________________________

D E C I S I O N

________________________

Introduction

1. On 30 July 2025, the court sent the order together with the decision of this court in the prescribed form (Call-1), (“the Decision”) [2025] HKCFI 3167 by ordinary post to the applicant’s updated address. In the Decision, the court, dismissed the applicant’s application for leave to apply for judicial review against the Appeal Board Decision dated 10 January 2020 dismissing the applicant’s appeal against the Director’s refusal of his non-refoulement claim.

2. The address that the court sent to was the address which the applicant confirmed at the hearing on 24 April 2025. Before the hearing, through the interpreter, the applicant signed to confirm his address at Room C, 4^th Floor, 161 to 159 Ki Lung Street, Sham Shui Po (“Confirmed Address”).

3. Pursuant to Order 53 rule 3(4) of the Rules of the High Court, the time limit for an appeal to the Court of Appeal is 14 days after the order of the court. The deadline for the applicant to file his appeal would have been on 13 August 2025. After a delay of more than a month, the applicant issued a summons dated 22 September 2025 to apply for an extension of time to appeal to the Court of Appeal against the court’s order.

4. At the hearing of the summons, the applicant appeared in person and made submissions.

The Law

5. The guidelines governing the discretion for an extension of time to appeal against the decision refusing leave to apply for judicial review therefore apply. The court shall have regard to (i) the length of the delay; (ii) the reason for the delay; (iii) the prospects of success of the intended appeal; and (iv) the prejudice to the respondent if an extension of time were granted. see Re MK HCMP 2609/2016, 10 January 2017; Chu On Fong Winter v The Appeal Panel (Housing) HCMP 982/2017, 20 July 2017; Islam Raja Rais v Director of Immigration HCMP 881/2017, 26 June 2017; Re Gurang Min Bahadur[2018] HKCA 226; Re Saqlain Muhammad[2018] HKCA 346; and Nguyen Thi Hong Thuy[2024] HKCA 1172.

6. In his affirmation in support of the summons, the applicant did not give any reason for the delay. All he said was that he did not receive any correspondence from the court regarding the dismissal of his judicial review.

7. At the hearing, the applicant still repeated that he did not receive either my order or the Decision. He said even up to now, he has not received the Decision. When I asked him if that was the case why he wanted to appeal, he said when he went to Sha Tin Court in connection with some other cases, the duty lawyer told him that his case was already concluded and he should appeal. This was the only reason that he gave. He now told the court that he never resided on the 4^th Floor of the Confirmed Address. He said he has always resided on the 6^th Floor.

Discussion

8. In considering the length of delay, I believe that a delay of more than a month is not short. As for the reason of the delay, I am not satisfied that the applicant has given a good explanation. As I had just outlined above, the order together with the Decision were sent to the applicant’s Confirmed Address.

9. Even up to now, this court has not received any undelivered return post of the Order and the Decision. It is plain that the service of the documents was regular. Even if I were to believe the applicant that he in fact has resided on 6^th Floor instead of the 4^th Floor, if there is any mistake, the mistake was his own making because he signed at the hearing to confirm the Confirmed Address. Hence, I reject his explanation.

10. In the present case, I find it most disconcerting is the fact that the applicant has sought to appeal against the Decision without even having read it. I believe that the intended appeal is not an authentic challenge to the Decision. His real motive is to play for time.

11. As for the prospect of success, since the applicant has not even read the Decision, I do not think he has raised any valid grounds to challenge it. Hence, I am not satisfied that there is a good prospect of success in the applicant’s intended appeal.

12. Whether to extend time to appeal is the discretion of the court. Having anxiously examined the facts and evidence of this case, I am disinclined to exercise my discretion to extend the time to the applicant to serve his appeal.

13. The summons is therefore dismissed.

	(Katina Levy)
	Deputy High Court Judge

The applicant appeared in person

HCAL 463/2020

[2025] HKCFI 3167

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST No. 463 of 2020

BETWEEN
	Eziokwu Christian	Applicant
	and
	Torture Claims Appeal Board /	Putative
	Non-Refoulement Claims Petition Office	Respondent
	and
	Director of Immigration	Putative
		Interested Party

Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review

NOTIFICATION of the Judge’s decision (Ord. 53 r. 3)

Following:

consideration of the documents only; or
consideration of the documents and oral submissions by the Applicant in open court;

Order by Deputy High Court JudgeLevy:

The application for leave to apply for judicial review be dismissed.

Observations for the Applicant:

Introduction

1. By a “Notice of application for leave for judicial review” in the prescribed Form 86 filed on 20 March 2020, the applicant applied for leave to apply for judicial review (“Leave Application”). The intended judicial review was against the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board / the Non-Refoulement Claims Petition Office (“Board”) dated 10 January 2020 (“Board’s Decision”) dismissing the applicant's appeal against a decision of the Director of Immigration (“Director”) dated 2 August 2018 (“Director’s Decision”) rejecting the applicant's non-refoulement claim on all applicable grounds. The Board’s Decision can be viewed at the following hyperlink: -

https://legalref.judiciary.hk/doc/judg/html/vetted/other/en/2020/HCAL000463_2020_files/the_Board's_Decision.pdf

2. The basis of the applicant’s claim is that he would be harmed or killed by the Nigerian government or security forces, due to his membership in the Indigenous People of Biafra (“IPOB”) separatist group. The applicant is a Christian of the indigenous Igbo ethnicity from Anambra State.

3. The Board’s reasoning and findings were set out in detail in the Board’s Decision and it is not necessary for me to repeat them. Unless otherwise specified, I shall also adopt the Board’s abbreviations and descriptions stated in the Board’s Decision.

4. At the applicant’s request for a hearing of the Leave Application, this court scheduled a hearing on 24 April 2025. The applicant attended the hearing in person. After having heard from him, this court informed him that the decision would be reserved, and be sent to his updated address.

Discussion

5. The Leave Application operates as a ‘filtering’ process and there is no requirement or expectation to give elaborate reasons for my decision.[1] It is sufficient to state my observations after considering the Board’s Decision and the applicant’s materials adduced.

6. In a proper Form 86, an applicant is required to identify the grounds of judicial review clearly and succinctly[2], and further to make full and frank disclosure of all material facts to be verified by an affidavit.

7. In his Form 86 and supporting affirmation, the applicant did not raise any grounds for judicial review.

8. At the hearing, this court reminded the applicant that he has not provided any grounds for judicial review in his papers, and asked him if he had any grounds he wished to submit in support of the Leave Application. Despite having been told that he has not submitted any grounds for the intended challenge, the applicant maintained that he had nothing to say.

9. As the Courts have repeatedly stated, a finding of fact is exclusively within the realm of the Board, which a court in a judicial review will not interfere with unless such finding involved an error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality.[3]

10. In the present case, after the Board had asked the applicant a few clarifying questions, it found that the applicant’s evidence was mostly hearsay and not supported by evidence. It also found that the applicant had never been ill-treated; or suffered any physical injuries; or wanted by the Nigerian government as a member of the IPOB. The Board also found the applicant’s account as how the church had financially supported him during his more than 3 years’ delay in the lodging of the non-refoulement claim until police not possible. All in all, the Board found that the applicant’s account was only bare allegations consisted mostly of speculations and hearsay information. When considering the availability of state protection, the Board took into account the country of origin information (“COI”) that corroborated the applicant’s assertion that in Nigeria, the situation was unstable and there were the human rights abuses. It, however, also considered objective COI indicating that reforms had been and were ongoing in Nigeria. After having considered all the materials, the Board concluded that state protection would be available upon the applicant’s return to Nigeria. The Board accepted that the applicant was an ordinary member of the IPOB without holding any official position. It found that despite having participated in the demonstrations, the applicant never suffered any physical injuries. It therefore concluded that the applicant faced no previous ill-treatment, and hence could not even meet the requirement of attaining the requisite minimum level of severity. The Board therefore found that the applicant would face no real risk of harm of being subjected to any ill-treatment if refouled. In addition, the Board found that the applicant’s fear was from the local security forces and it was a localized problem in “Anamba State”. It, thus, concluded that internal relocation would be viable, especially in light of the applicant having previously resided in Lagos.

11. Bearing in mind the enhanced standard that should be adopted in scrutinizing the Board’s Decision, this court is satisfied that the Board correctly applied the law relating to all the grounds and observed a high standard of fairness. It is noted that when concluding the availability of the state protection, the Board had taken into account one of the ICO materials that seemed to suggest that IPOB was declared a terrorist organization[4] . I am satisfied that the Board is entitled to come to this conclusion in view of all other materials available and the applicant’s past association with the IPOB as a mere ordinary member, the applicant’s original purpose of coming to Hong Kong, his delay and the circumstances leading to the lodging of the non-refoulement claim and the evaluation of the applicant’s evidence. The Board is entitled to find that the applicant’s claim was based on speculations and hearsay. Notably, the applicant has provided absolutely no grounds to challenge the Board’s Decision whether on paper or at the hearing. The applicant has not shown any errors of law or procedural unfairness or irrationality in the Board’s Decision. The applicant’s intended challenge to the Board’s Decision is not reasonably arguable with realistic prospects of success such that would enable this court to grant leave[5].

Order

12. The application for leave to apply for judicial review be dismissed.

Dated the 30^th day of July 2025

(Alfred Chan)
for Registrar, High Court

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

Notes for the Applicant: If leave has been granted, the Applicant or the Applicant’s solicitors must:
a) serve on the respondent and such interested parties as may be directed by the Court the order granting leave and any directions given within 14 days after the leave was granted (Order 53, rule 4A); b) issue the originating summons within 14 days after the grant of leave and serve it in accordance with Order 53, rule 5; and c) supply to every other party copies of every affidavit which the Applicant proposes to use at the hearing, including the affidavit in support of the application for leave (Order 53, rule 6(5)).		Sent to the Applicant on 30/7/2025 Eziokwu Christian Applicant’s ref. no: Nil.		Sent to the Putative Respondent / the Putative Respondent’s solicitors / such Putative Interested Parties as may be directed by the Court / the Putative Interested Parties’ solicitors on 30/7/2025 Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office Putative Respondent’s ref. no.: USM 13008/18/8/278/NI217 Director of Immigration Putative Interested Party’s ref. no.: QA T/C 2190/18 (Formerly RBCZ 11043/17) Department of Justice, Senior Assistant Law Officer (Civil Law) (Civil Litigation Unit 2)

Form CALL-1

[1] Re Zunartyah[2018] HKCA 14 at [23].

[2] Ho Loy & Another v Director of Environmental Protection, HCAL 21/2015, 22 December 2016 at [142].

[3] Re Lakhwinder Singh[2018] HKCA 246; Re Daljit Singh[2018] HKCA 328; Re Mudannayakalage Chaminda Pushpa Kumara[2018] HKCA 400; and Nupur Mst v Director of Immigration[2018] HKCA 524.

[4] Board’s Decision at [29(iv)].

[5] Po Fun Chan v Winnie Cheung (2007) 10 HKCFAR 676

EZIOKWU CHRISTIAN v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE [Decision on Leave Application]

Related cases with same parties

Files (2)

	consideration of the documents only; or
	consideration of the documents and oral submissions by the Applicant in open court;