ZAHID ABU v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

CACV 869/2025, [2026] HKCA 752

On appeal from [2025] HKCFI 4476

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 869 OF 2025

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO. 3465 OF 2019)

__________________________

__________________________

________________

J U D G M E N T

________________

The Court:

INTRODUCTION

1.  This is the applicant’s appeal against the order of Deputy High Court Judge Levy (“the Judge”) dated 3 October 2025 (“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 31 October 2019 (“the Board’s Decision”) whereby the Board dismissed his appeal against the decision of the Director of Immigration (“the Director”) dated 25 May 2018 (“the Director’s Decision”).

BACKGROUND

2.  The applicant is a national of Bangladesh. He lodged a non-refoulement claim with the Immigration Department on the basis that, if refouled, he would be harmed or killed by the mother of his ex-wife, who was influential politically with close ties with high-ranking leaders in his home area.  The applicant’s non-refoulement claim was rejected by the Director, and his appeal was rejected by the Board.  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. 

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 CALL-1 Form.

GROUNDS OF APPEAL

4.  By a notice of appeal filed on 13 October 2025, the applicant sought to appeal the Judge’s decision to this court. For the grounds of appeal, the applicant stated that:

“1. The Applicant submits that the Director, the Adjudicator, and the Court have failed to take such argument into account or that the Director has failed to give sufficient weight to such argument before reaching the Decision.

2. The Director’s Decision, it was evident that the director had failed to appreciate or give the proper importance or weight to the presence of state Acquiescence in the Applicant’s case. This has indeed led to an unfair outcome of rejecting the Applicant’s non-refoulement claim.

3. The Adjudicator failed to make a sufficient inquiry before finalizing the determination. The Adjudicator stated that the applicant had failed to provide any credible evidence to prove the material elements of his claim.

4. The adjudicator has failed to give a sufficient chance to the applicant to arrange relevant evidence to this non-refoulement claim as well as his appeal.

5. Surprisingly, the director in his Decision, while referring to relevant COIs. Kept including meaning which suited his pre-conceived conclusion. This was a clean case of unfair attitude shown by the Director, which in itself is enough to render his Decision void.”

5.  The appeal was scheduled to be heard on 25 February 2026. The applicant has failed to lodge any skeleton argument in support of his appeal in accordance with the directions given by the Registrar of Civil Appeals. Accordingly, the applicant is deemed to have waived his right to have an oral hearing of the appeal, and elected to have the appeal disposed of on paper. The applicant was informed of the same by a court’s letter.

LEGAL PRINCIPLES

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 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)).

7.  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

8.  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 bare assertions as stated in his grounds of appeal, which were not substantiated with any specific information or elaboration. They lack substance and do not constitute any viable grounds of appeal.

9.  For the above reasons, the applicant’s appeal is devoid of merits.  We dismiss it accordingly.