CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST No. 1070 of 2021
|
BETWEEN
|
| |
Saha Bikash Kumar |
Applicant |
| |
and |
|
| |
Torture Claims Appeal Board/
Non-Refoulement Claims Petition Office |
Putative
Respondent |
| |
and |
|
| |
Director of Immigration |
Putative |
| |
|
Interested Party |
Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review
NOTIFICATION of the Judge’s decision (Ord. 53 r. 3)
Following;
Order by Deputy High Court Judge (Non-Refoulement Claims) Lewis Law:
The application for leave to apply for judicial review be dismissed.
Observations for the Applicant:
1. By a Form 86 filed on 28 July 2021 (“Form 86”), the Applicant sought leave for judicial review of the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-Refoulement Claims Petition Office (“the Board”) made on 29 June 2021 (“the Board’s Decision”).
2. The Board’s Decision was made pursuant to a petition/appeal from a decision of the Director of Immigration (“DI”) dated 27 May 2020.
3. The Applicant was absent from the oral hearing of this leave application. On the authority of Re Abdus Salam [2019] HKCA 1091, I proceed to deal with the leave application based on the materials placed before me.
4. The Applicant is a Bangladeshi national. The essence of the Applicant’s case was that he feared ill-treatment from Islamic militants by reason of his “atheist” internet activities. The Board conducted an oral hearing to consider the claim. After a thorough assessment of the evidence produced by the Applicant, the Board came to the view that the Applicant would not face a real risk of suffering the proscribed harm should he return to Bangladesh in the reasonably foreseeable future; neither was there any well-founded fear of persecution based on any Refugees Convention basis.
5. I have reviewed the Board’s Decision vigorously, but cannot detect any reasonable argument against the lawfulness or procedural propriety of the Board’s Decision.
6. It has been reiterated time and again that the primary responsibility for the factual assessment of whether any risk of ill-treatment exists lies with the Board. In the absence of any errors of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality, the Court would not reopen the Board’s findings or make a determination on the case afresh. The role of the Court in a judicial review is not to provide a further avenue of appeal (see Re Lakhwinder Singh [2018] HKCA 246).
7. The leave application is dismissed.
Dated the 30th day of December 2025
| |
(Teresa Ng)
for Registrar, High Court
|
Where leave to apply has been granted, Applicants and their legal advisers are reminded of their obligation to reconsider the merits of their application in the light of the Respondent’s evidence
Notes for the Applicant:
If leave has been granted, the Applicant or the Applicant’s solicitors must:
|
|
|
|
|
a) serve on the respondent and such interested parties as may be directed by the Court the order granting leave and any directions given within 14 days after the leave was granted (Order 53, rule 4A);
b) issue the originating summons within 14 days after the grant of leave and serve it in accordance with Order 53, rule 5; and
c) supply to every other party copies of every affidavit which the Applicant proposes to use at the hearing, including the affidavit in support of the application for leave (Order 53, rule 6(5)).
|
|
Sent to the Applicant on 30 December 2025
Saha Bikash Kumar
Applicant’s ref. no.:
Nil. |
|
Sent to the Putative Respondent / the Putative Respondent’s solicitors / such Putative Interested Parties as may be directed by the Court / the Putative Interested Parties’ solicitors on 30 December 2025
Torture Claims Appeal Board/
Non-Refoulement Claims Petition Office
Putative Respondent’s ref. no.:
USM 16999/20/6/32/B2158
Director of Immigration
Putative Interested Party’s ref. no.:
QA T/C 1147/19 (formerly RBCZ 10894/19)
Department of Justice,
Senior Assistant Law Officer
(Civil Law)
(Civil Litigation Unit 2) |
Form CALL-1