HOSSAIN MD TOFAZZAL v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

CACV 558/2025, [2026] HKCA 344

On appeal from [2025] HKCFI 2515

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 558 OF 2025

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO. 3031 OF 2019)

__________________________

__________________________

_______________

J U D G M E N T

_______________

The Court:

Introduction

1.  This is the applicant’s appeal against the judgment and the order of Deputy High Court Judge K.W. Lung (“the Judge”) dated 25 July 2025[1](“the Judgment” and “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 4 October 2019 (“the Board’s Decision”).

BACKGROUND

2.  The applicant is a national of Bangladesh. He lodged a claim with the Immigration Department on the basis that, if refouled, he would be harmed or killed by members of the Awami League (“AL”) as he handled a complaint against a village gangster who was a member of AL. The applicant’s non-refoulement claim was rejected by the Director, and his appeal against the Director’s decision was rejected by the Board.

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 Judgment.

GROUNDS OF APPEAL

4.  By a notice of appeal filed on 30 July 2025, the applicant sought to appeal the Judge’s decision to this court. For the grounds of appeal, the applicant stated that “I am not agree with the decision of the Court of First Instance because that decision is unfair. The learned Judge may did not scrutinize my problem in my home country. My enemies are still looking for me, if I return there I will be killed by my enemies”. 

5.  In the applicant’s skeleton argument lodged on 22 January 2026, he reiterated his claim that his life would be at risk if refouled as he would be killed by his enemies. He also disputed the Judge’s decision as being unreasonable and unfair and the Judge had erred in law.

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 his life was still in danger as his problem had not been solved.

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 his grounds of appeal and in his 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 and 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.