NZEKWABAM MICHAEL IFEANYI v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

CACV 737/2025, [2026] HKCA 142

On appeal from [2025] HKCFI 3453

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 737 OF 2025

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO. 1260 OF 2020)

__________________________

BETWEEN
	NZEKWABAM MICHAEL IFEANYI	Applicant
and
	TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD/	Putative
	NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS	Respondent
	PETITION OFFICE
and
	DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION	Putative  Interested Party

__________________________

Before:

Hon Poon CJHC and Ng J in Court

Date of Hearing:	30 January 2026
Date of Judgment:	11 February 2026

 

________________

JUDGMENT

________________

The Court:

Introduction

1.  This is the applicant’s appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge (Non-refoulement Claims) Val Chow (“ the Judge”) given in the CALL-1 Form and the Order dated 19 August 2025 ^[1] refusing his application for leave to apply for judicial review against the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board (the “ Board”) dated 13 July 2018 (the “ Board’s Decision”) whereby the Board dismissed his appeal against the decision of the Director of Immigration (the “ Director”) dated 4 August 2017 (the “ Director’sDecision”) rejecting his non‑refoulement protection claim. 

The applicant’s claimand the Judge’s decision

2.  The applicant is a national of Nigeria. In his non-refoulement claim form filed with the Immigration Department dated 26 June 2017, he lodged a claim on the basis that, if refouled, he would be harmed or killed by 1) a terrorist group called “Niger Delta Volunteer Force” for refusing to join them,  2) an individual called “James” to whom the applicant owed a debt, 3) a relative called “Okeke” who was in a conflict with the applicant’s family over ownership of certain pieces of land, and 4) a security operation of the Nigerian government due to his ethnicity.  The applicant’s non-refoulement claim was rejected by the Director, and his appeal against it was rejected by the Board on 13 July 2018.  Details of the applicant’s claim and the Board’s reasons for rejecting the applicant’s appeal can be found in the Board’s Decision, the hyperlink to which can be found in the CALL-1 Form.

3.  The applicant’s application for leave to apply for judicial review was refused by the Judge and details of the Judge’s reasons for refusing to grant leave can be found in the CALL-1 Form.

The appeal

4.  By a notice of appeal filed on 12 September 2025, the applicant sought to appeal the Judge’s decision to this court.  For the grounds of appeal, the applicant stated that “there are errors of law or a procedural unfairness in the Judgment. The Assessors did not consider the state acquiescence rather relied on misleading country of origin information (C.O.I.).”, but without providing further particulars or elaboration.

5.  The appeal was heard on 30 January 2026.  The applicant attended the hearing in person with the assistance of a Igbo interpreter.  In court, he added that there were some political problems in Nigeria: 1) terrorist attacks against Christians, and 2) ongoing Islamisation and therefore his life was in danger.  Further, the decision of the Board was based on information they got on Facebook.  Such information was not reliable.

6.  In the applicant’s written submission lodged on 23 December 2025, apart from repeating his claim, he further stated that:

“… I therefore, appeal to the authorities of Hong Kong to protect me until I am able to settle most of these issues confronting me. I discovered some errors of law and procedural unfairness in the decisions of both Director of Immigration and the Appeal Board. I want the honourable judges to grant me a fair hearing and justice. I believe that the burden of proof of my claim is upon me. Therefore I would urge the judges to consider persecution risk and disregard the country of origin information used by Director of Immigration being Facebook and Internet information used to decide my claim.

My arguement is that both the Director of Immigration and the Appeal Board did not consider my BOR2 right. They did not consider properly internal relocation in Nigeria as there is terrorism in the country which has caused insecurity all over the country. I am submitting this submission in support of my affidavit of Form 86 earlier on.”

Our reasons for decision

7.  The Court of Appeal’s general approach in dealing with appeals in non-refoulement cases is 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, 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 is a fresh application for judicial review (see Nupur Mst, 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 below 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.  In the present case, no such error of law or procedural unfairness or irrationality in the decision of the Board was observed by the Judge or was pointed out by the applicant apart from the mere assertions in his grounds of appeal.

9.  It is incumbent on the applicant to point out the Judge’s errors with sufficient particulars.  We are of the view that the matters set out in the notice of appeal or his written submission failed to identify any error on the part of the Judge. They do not constitute any viable grounds of appeal and lack substance. We see no basis to interfere with the Judge’s decision. 

10.  For the above reasons, the applicant’s appeal is devoid of merits.  Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal.

The applicant, unrepresented, acted in person

^[1][2025] HKCFI 3453