ISLAM SAIFUL v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

CACV 664/2025, [2026] HKCA 109

On appeal from [2025] HKCFI 3476

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 664 OF 2025

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO. 1490 OF 2020)

__________________________

between

__________________________

________________

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 Form CALL-1 and the Order dated 27 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 2020 (the “Board’s Decision”) whereby the Board dismissed his appeal against the decision of the Director of Immigration (the “Director”) dated 21 April 2020 (the “Director’s Decision”) and rejecting his non-refoulement claim.

The applicant’s claim and the Judge’s decision

2.  The applicant is a national of Bangladesh. His claim is put on the basis that, if refouled, he would be harmed or killed by members of the Awami League (“AL”), a political party, if he were to return to Bangladesh as he is a member of the opposing Bangladesh National Party (“BNP”). The applicant’s non-refoulement claim was rejected by the Director and his appeal against it was rejected by the Board on 13 July 2020. 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 Form CALL-1.

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.

The appeal

4.  By a notice of appeal filed on 1 September 2025, the applicant sought to appeal the Judge’s decision to this court. For the grounds of appeal, the applicant stated that he would face hardship should he be refouled, and that the Board has significantly relied on the sources of news which is not officially recognised or is simply hearsay, that they have also relied on some cases which are outdated considering the dramatic changes, and that the lack of credible source of information has resulted in them making groundless speculations, but without providing further particulars or elaboration.

5.  The appeal was heard on 27 January 2026. The applicant attended the hearing in person with the assistance of a Bengali interpreter. He told this court he cannot go back because he will be prosecuted if he goes back to Bangladesh. He has married a HK resident.

6.  In his 4-page written submissions lodged on 19 December 2025, the applicant raised 2 grounds, cited a number of cases and made submissions on the general principles of law relating to non-refoulement claims without saying how those principles relate to his case.

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, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the decision of the Board was observed by the Judge.

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.