FELIX KINGSLEY CHISOM v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

CACV 596/2025, [2026] HKCA 131

On Appeal From [2025] HKCFI 2994

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 596 OF 2025

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO. 3127 OF 2019)

____________________

____________________

________________

J U D G M E N T

________________

Hon Anthony Chan JA (giving the Judgment of the Court):

1.  This is the Applicant’s appeal against the order (“Dismissal Order”) of Deputy High Court Judge K.W. Lung (“Judge”) dated 30 July 2025 by which his application for leave to apply for judicial review (“Leave Application”) against the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board (“Board”) dated 26 September 2019 (“Board’s Decision”) was dismissed. By that decision, the Board upheld the decision of the Director of Immigration (“Director”) to reject the Applicant’s non-refoulement claim.

2.  The Applicant is a national of Nigeria. The basis of his non-refoulement claim had been set out in detail in the Board’s Decision, which was summarized in the Judgment below (“Judgment”). In gist, the Applicant claims that if he returns to Nigeria he would be harmed or killed by Rochas, the state governor, who had forcibly taken the farmland of the Applicant’s family.

3.  In [12] to [16] of the Judgment, the Judge gave detailed reasons for refusing the Leave Application.

4.  By a Notice of Appeal filed on 12 August 2025, the Applicant appeals against the Judge’s decision. The Applicant lodged his written submission on 22 August 2025. In summary, the Applicant contends that:

(1)  The Board did not determine the Applicant’s case fairly, and the Board’s Decision was unreasonable or procedurally unfair;

(2)  Because the Board’s Decision was not translated or read back to the Applicant, he was deprived of the right to advance full grounds for appeal; and

(3)  The Applicant was never provided with proper legal and language assistance, which resulted in an error of law, procedural unfairness, or a failure to adhere to high standards of fairness.

5.  Pursuant to the directions given by the Registrar of Civil Appeals on 12 August 2025, this appeal has been referred to this Court to be disposed of on paper without an oral hearing, and we consider it appropriate to do so.

6.  The general approach of this Court in dealing with appeals in non-refoulement cases has been set out in Nupur Mst v Director of Immigration[2018] HKCA 524 at [14]. In particular, in an appeal against refusal of leave to apply for judicial review in non-refoulement cases, this Court 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. This Court’s role is not to examine the Board’s decision afresh as if it is a fresh application for judicial review (see Nupur Mst at [14(6)]).

7.  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 is an error of law or procedural unfairness or irrationality in the decision of the Board: Re Kartini[2019] HKCA 1022 at [13].

8.  In respect of the grounds of appeal, we note that the Applicant has not identified any error in the Judge’s reasoning. We also note that the Applicant attended the hearing before the Judge for his Leave Application. Interpretation service is normally provided for such a hearing where needed. There is no indication whatsoever that the Applicant had difficulty expressing himself or understanding the proceedings.

9.  Regarding the lack of legal assistance, it has been repeatedly emphasised by this Court that as a matter of law, a non-refoulement claimant is not entitled to free legal representation at all stages of the process and that the high standard of fairness required by law does not entail interpretation service being made available to a claimant at all the time as he desires: Re Pante Luisa Tuppil[2025] HKCA 1123 at [11].  We are unable to see any merit in the grounds of appeal.

10.  In the premises, the appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs.

The Applicant, acting in person