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

CACV 549/2025, [2026] HKCA 524

On Appeal From [2025] HKCFI 2514

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO.549 OF 2025

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO. 3027 OF 2019)

____________________

____________________

________________

JUDGMENT

________________

Hon Anthony Chan 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 (“Judge”) dated 25 July 2025 by which his application for leave to apply for judicial review (“Leave Application”) against the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board (“Board”) dated 3 October 2019 (“Board’s Decision”) was dismissed. By that decision, the Board upheld the decision of the Director of Immigration (“Director”) rejecting the Applicant’s non-refoulement claim.

2.  The Applicant is a national of Bangladesh.  The basis of his non-refoulement claim had been set out in detail in the Board’s Decision, which was summarised by the Judge at [3] - [5] of the Judgment.  In gist, the Applicant claims that if he returns home, he will be killed or harmed by members of the Awami League or the Bangladesh Chhatra League because of his support for another political party.

3.  In [12] to [16] of the Judgment, the Judge gave detailed reasons for refusing the Leave Application.

4.  By a Notice of Appeal filed on 28 July 2025, the Applicant appeals against the Judge’s decision.  The Applicant contends that:

“I am not agree with the decision of the Court of First Instance and I am disagree with the decisions of the Torture Claims Appeal Board and the Director of the Immigration, because the decision makers did not scrutinize my problem in my home country properly. If I return to my country I will be killed by my enemies.”

5.  In his Skeleton Argument lodged on 26 February 2026, the Applicant submits that:

(a)     The Judge’s decision to refuse the Leave Application was unreasonable;

(b)     The Judge was wrong in law for not applying the principle of irrationality to the decisions of the Director and the Board;

(c)     The Judge was wrong in law for not applying the principle of procedural unfairness, as the Director and the Board were required to give reasons;

(d)     The Judge reviewed the matter lightly without sufficient care, and did not analyse the claims properly;

(e)     The Board failed to give the Applicant sufficient chance to arrange relevant evidence;

(f)     The Board relied on sources of news which are not officially recognised or are simply hearsay;

(g)     The Board irrationally failed to evaluate whether there was a consistent pattern of gross human rights violations in his home country; and

(h)     The Board irrationally failed to assess whether state protection exists in his home country.

6.  At the hearing of this appeal, the Applicant said that Bangladesh had gone through a general election recently.  His brother was asked to join the ruling party, BNP.  By reason of his brother’s refusal, a false case has been lodged against the Applicant and his brother.  The Applicant is very scared because of the false case. 

7.  The general approach of this Court in dealing with appeals in non-refoulement cases has been 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, this Court 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.  This Court’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 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 at [13].

9.  In respect of the grounds of appeal, the Applicant referred to some well-known public law principles but did not provide any particulars.  These grounds also did not engage with the reasons given by the Judge for dismissing the Leave Application.  There is thus no merit in any of the grounds of appeal advanced by the Applicant.  The matters advanced by the Applicant at the hearing do not assist him in this appeal.

10.  The Applicant also asks this Court to scrutinize his non-refoulement claim.  As we have explained above, this is not the function of this Court.

11.  In the premises, this appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs.