MADUKA CHIDIEBERE FRANK v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

CACV 850/2025, [2026] HKCA 426

On appeal from [2025] HKCFI 4349

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 850 OF 2025

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO. 991 OF 2020)

__________________________

__________________________

________________

JUDGMENT

________________

The Court:

INTRODUCTION

1.  This is the applicant’s appeal against the order of Deputy High Court Judge Levy (“theJudge”) dated 26 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 8 May 2020 (“the Board’s Decision”) whereby the Board dismissed his appeal against the decision of the Director of Immigration (“the Director”) dated 9 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 his paternal uncle (i.e. father’s brother) over a land dispute with him.  The applicant’s non-refoulement claim was rejected by the Director, and his appeal against it 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 Form CALL-1.

GROUNDS OF APPEAL

4.  By a notice of appeal filed on 8 October 2025, the applicant sought to appeal the Judge’s decision to this court.  For the grounds of appeal, the applicant stated that “I still maintained that my life is in danger should I return to my country because land dispute is a serious matter that has claimed lives in my country. The law enforcement agency would not protect me and there is lawlessness in my country hence relocation is not possible due to general insecurity.” 

5.  The applicant lodged his written submission on 27 January 2026, in which he reiterated his claim and that his life would be at risk if refouled.

6.  However, the applicant did not indicate any complaint against or identify any error made by the Judge in dismissing his application for leave to take out a judicial review.

7.  The appeal was heard on 12 March 2026.  The applicant attended the hearing in person with the assistance of an Igbo interpreter and confirmed that he had nothing further to add.

LEGAL PRINCIPLES

8.  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)).

9.  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

10.  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 mere assertions as stated in his grounds of appeal and in his written submission.

11.  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 and written submission failed to identify or substantiate 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. 

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

The applicant, unrepresented, acted in person