AKTHAR MST POPY v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

CACV 860/2025, [2026] HKCA 346

On appeal from [2025] HKCFI 4477

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 860 OF 2025

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO. 3439 OF 2019)

__________________________

__________________________

_______________

J U D G M E N T

_______________

The Court:

Introduction

1.  This is the applicant’s appeal against the order of DHCJ Levy (“the Judge”) dated 3 October 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 14 November 2019 (“the Board’s Decision”) whereby the Board dismissed her appeal against the decision of the Director of Immigration (“the Director”) dated 27 April 2018 (“the Director’s Decision”).

BACKGROUND

2.  The applicant is a national of Bangladesh. She lodged her non-refoulement claim with the Immigration Department on the basis that, if refouled, she would be harmed or killed by people from Awami League and the Jamaat-e-Islamic in Bangladesh. The applicant’s non-refoulement claim was rejected by the Director, and the 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. Details of the Judge’s reasons for refusing to grant leave can be found in the CALL-1 Form.  

GROUNDS OF APPEAL

4.  By a notice of appeal filed on 9 October 2025, the applicant sought to appeal the Judge’s decision to this court. For the grounds of appeal, the applicant stated that “I do not agree with the decision of the Court of First Instance, because this decision make me liable to go back to my home country where my life is not safe. If I go back there I will be killed by my enemies”.

5.  In the applicant’s skeleton argument lodged on 20 January 2026, she reiterated her claim that her life would be at risk if refouled. She also asserted that the Judge erred in law, and that her decision was unreasonable and unfair.

6.  The appeal was heard on 25 February 2026. The applicant attended the hearing in person with the assistance of a Bengali interpreter and added that given the situation in her home country, she could not go back.

LEGAL PRINCIPLES

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.  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

9.  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 her grounds of appeal and in her skeleton argument.

10.  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 skeleton argument failed to identify any 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.

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