ODII SAMUEL EKENE v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

CACV 837/2025, [2026] HKCA 749

On appeal from [2025] HKCFI 3138

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 837 OF 2025

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO. 3034 OF 2019)

__________________________

__________________________

________________

J U D G M E N T

________________

The Court:

INTRODUCTION

1.  This is the applicant’s appeal against the order of Deputy High Court Judge K.W. Lung (“theJudge”) dated 23 September 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 26 September 2019 (“the Board’s Decision”) whereby the Board dismissed his appeal against the decision of the Director of Immigration (“the Director”) dated 22 November 2018 (“theDirector’sDecision”).

BACKGROUND

2.  The applicant is a national of Nigeria. He lodged a non-refoulement claim with the Immigration Department on the basis that, if refouled, he would be harmed or killed by the Youth Union, the king of his local village and the chairmen of the Onitsha Local Government areas as he was falsely accused of being homosexual. The applicant’s non-refoulement claim was rejected by the Director, and his appeal was rejected by the Board. 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.

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 6 October 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 procedural unfairness in the Judgment of which the country of origin information used to assess my case was misleading.”

5.  The appeal was scheduled to be heard on 24 February 2026. The applicant has failed to lodge his skeleton argument in support of his appeal in accordance with the directions and timetable given by the Registrar of Civil Appeals dated 30 December 2025. Accordingly, the applicant is deemed to have waived his right to have an oral hearing of the appeal, and elected to have the appeal disposed of on paper. The applicant was informed of the same by a court’s letter.

LEGAL PRINCIPLES

6.  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)).

7.  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 are errors of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the decision of the Board: Re Kartini[2019] HKCA 1022.

DISCUSSION & DISPOSITION

8.  In the present case, no error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the decision of the Board was detected by the Judge or was pointed out by the applicant apart from the bare assertions as stated in his notice of appeal, which were not substantiated with any specific information or elaboration.

9.  It is incumbent on the applicant to point out the Judge’s errors with sufficient particulars. In our view, the matters set out in the applicant’s notice of appeal failed to identify any error on the part of the Judge. They lack substance and do not constitute any viable grounds of appeal. 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