PAUL KOFI ALIAS ASARE PAUL KOFI v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

CACV 1236/2025, [2026] HKCA 277

On Appeal From [2025] HKCFI 5943

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 1236 OF 2025

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 438 OF 2021)

________________________

_____________________

________________________

JUDGMENT

________________________

Hon Chow JA (giving the Judgment of the Court):

1.  This is the Applicant’s appeal against the order of Deputy High Court Judge (Non-refoulement Claims) Jeffrey Chau (“the Judge”) dated 15 December 2025 (“the Order”) refusing to grant leave to apply for judicial review of the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office (“the Board”) dated 5 January 2021 (“the Board’s Decision”), whereby the Board dismissed the Applicant’s appeal against the decision of the Director of Immigration (“the Director”) dated 10 December 2018.

2.  The Applicant alleges that, if refouled to Nigeria, he will be harmed or killed by (i) his paternal uncles (Godwin and Wilson) due to a dispute with them over the inheritance of the estate of his grandfather, (ii) the Nigerian government authorities due to his previous affiliations with the Movement for the Actualization of the Sovereign State of Biafra[1], and (iii) members of the Muslim extremists groups because he is a Christian and an Igbo.  He also alleges that he has been a HIV-positive patient since around 2015 and he will not be able to obtain the necessary medicine to survive in Nigeria.

3.  The Applicant’s background, the basis of his claim, the findings of the Board and its reasons for dismissing his appeal against the Director’s decision have been set out in detail in the Board’s Decision, and referred to by the Judge in the Judge’s decision (see §3 of the CALL-1 Form).  We do not propose to repeat them here.

4.  The Judge’s reasons for dismissing the Applicant’s leave application are set out at §§4-10 of the CALL-1 Form.  In gist, the Judge found that the Applicant had not advanced any valid grounds for his intended judicial review.  The Judge also found that there were no errors of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the Board’s Decision, and the Applicant’s assertions in relation to his family did not give rise to any valid grounds or relevant consideration for his non-refoulement claim.

THIS APPEAL

5.  In his Notice of Appeal filed on 29 December 2025, the Applicant states the following:

“There is error of law in the judgment as both state protection and internal relocation was not given proper consideration.” [sic]

6.  The Applicant has failed to lodge written submissions in support of his appeal in accordance with the directions given by the Registrar of Civil Appeals on 29 December 2025.  Accordingly, he is deemed to have waived the right to have an oral hearing of his appeal and elected to have his appeal disposed of on paper.  Having considered the documents before us, we consider that it is appropriate to deal with the Applicant’s appeal on paper without an oral hearing. 

DISCUSSION

7.  In an appeal against refusal of leave to apply for judicial review in non-refoulement cases, the Court of Appeal would only examine the decision of the judge in light of the grounds advanced by the applicant.  If no viable ground is put forward to reverse the judge’s decision, the appeal should be dismissed.  The Court of Appeal’s role is not to examine the Board’s decision afresh as if it was a fresh application for judicial review (see Nupur Mst v Director of Immigration[2018] HKCA 524, at §14(6)).

8.  Further, the assessment of evidence, country of origin information, risk of harm, state protection and viability of internal relocation are primarily within the province of the Board and the Director. 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: Re Kartini[2019] HKCA 1022, at §13.

9.  The matters raised by the Applicant in the Notice of Appeal are general assertions without particulars.  Further, issues such as state protection and internal relocation are matters falling primarily within the province of the Board.  No error of law or procedural unfairness or irrationality in the decision of the Board is shown in the present case.  The Applicant has failed to raise any valid grounds of appeal against the Order. 

10.  The Applicant’s appeal has no merit, and is dismissed.

[1] See §3 of the Director’s decision dated 10 December 2018.