SHEIKH MOHAMMED DELOWAR v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

CACV 1169/2025, [2026] HKCA 82

On Appeal From [2025] HKCFI 5774

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 1169 OF 2025

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 3276 OF 2019)

________________________

_____________________

_______________

J U D G M E N T

_______________

Hon Chow JA (giving the Judgment of the Court):

1.  This is the Applicant’s appeal against the order of Deputy High Court Judge K W Lung (“the Judge”) dated 2 December 2025 (“the Order”) refusing to grant leave to the Applicant to apply for judicial review of the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office (“the Board”) dated 30 October 2019 (“the Board’s Decision”), whereby the Board dismissed the Applicant’s appeal against the decision of the Director of Immigration (“the Director”) dated 22 July 2019 rejecting his non-refoulement claim.

2.  The Applicant alleges that, if refouled to Bangladesh, he will be harmed or killed by members of the Awami League because he supported another political party, the Bangladesh Nationalist Party (“BNP”), and he organised election events and activities for the BNP[1]. The Applicant’s background, the basis of his claim, the findings of the Board and its reasons for dismissing the Applicant’s appeal against the Director’s decision have been set out in detail in the Board’s Decision, and summarised by the Judge in the Judge’s decision (see §§3-9 of the Form CALL-1).

3.  The Judge’s reasons for dismissing the Applicant’s leave application are set out at §§12-16 of the Form CALL-1. In gist, the Judge found that the grounds put forward by the Applicant to challenge the Board’s Decision were bare assertions or merely his opinions without any evidence in support, and they had no validity.  

THIS APPEAL

4.  In his Notice of Appeal filed on 10 December 2025, the Applicant states that he disagrees with the decisions of the Director and the Board because they did not properly investigate his claim. He also asserts that his case was not determined fairly.

5.  The Applicant has failed to lodge written submissions in support of his appeal in accordance with the directions given by the Registrar of Civil Appeals on 10 December 2025. Accordingly, he is deemed to have waived the right to have an oral hearing of his appeal and elected to have his appeal disposed of on paper. Having considered the documents before us, we consider that it is appropriate to deal with the Applicant’s appeal on paper without an oral hearing.

DISCUSSION

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’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.  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 will not intervene by way of judicial review unless there are errors of law or procedural unfairness or irrationality in the decision of the Board: Re Kartini [2019] HKCA 1022, at §13. No such error of law or procedural unfairness or irrationality in the decision of the Board is shown in the present case.

8.  The matters raised in the Applicant’s Notice of Appeal are general assertions without particulars, and are directed at the decisions of the Director and the Board. They do not constitute any valid grounds of appeal against the Judge’s decision.

9.  The Applicant has failed to identify or show any error in the Judge’s decision refusing to grant leave to apply for judicial review, or raise any viable ground of appeal against the Order.

10.  The Applicant’s appeal has no merit, and is dismissed.