KHATUN LIPI v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD

CACV 742/2025, [2026] HKCA 542

On Appeal From [2025] HKCFI 4084

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 742 OF 2025

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 3407 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 Michael Wong (“the Judge”) dated 9 September 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 1 November 2019 (“the Board’s Decision”).

BACKGROUND

2.  The Applicant is a national of Bangladesh. On 13 February 2018, the Applicant lodged a non-refoulement claim on the basis that, if refouled, she would be targeted by the Awami League (“AL”) because of her father, who was a member of the Bangladesh Nationalist Party and she had been assaulted several times before she was kidnapped and raped in 2012 by 3 to 4 AL members.[1]  The Applicant’s non-refoulement claim was rejected by the Director of Immigration (“the Director”) on 10 January 2019, and the appeal against the Director’s decision was rejected by the Board on 1 November 2019. 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, the hyperlink to which can be found in the CALL-1 Form dated 9 September 2025.[2] 

3.  The Applicant’s application for leave to apply for judicial review was refused by the Judge on 9 September 2025. Details of the Judge’s reasons for refusing to grant leave can be found in the CALL-1 Form.

GROUNDS OF APPEAL

4.  In the Notice of Appeal filed on 15 September 2025, the Applicant states the following that:

“I am disagree with the decision maker authorities. The decision made by the Director of Immigration, As well as the decision made by the Adjudicator of the Torture Claim Appeal Board. There is no proper investigation in my claim. My life still in danger in my home land.” (sic)

5.  In the 3-page written submissions filed on 12 January 2026, the Applicant essentially argues that:

(1)  The Director and the Board wrongly assessed the Applicant’s non-refoulement claim.

(2)  The Applicant’s right to life is protected under the Basic Law and the Bill of Rights.

(3)  The Director failed to give sufficient weight to state acquiescence, or failed to take such argument into account.

(4)  The Board placed too much reliance on country of origin information and failed to take into account the Applicant’s personal background and experience.

(5)  The Director failed to give enough weightage to country of origin information that the police in the Applicant’s country would not be able to protect before reaching his decision.

(6)  The Board dismissed the Applicant’s appeal based on the findings which the Board ought to allow the appeal.

(7)  The Board’s decision to refuse the Applicant’s appeal was unreasonable or irrational.

(8)  The Board relied on some web news which is not officially recognised by the authorities.

(9)  There is no proper investigation in the Applicant’s claim.

(10)  The Applicant’s claim was not determined fairly.

6.  At the hearing on 27 February 2026, the applicant requested the assistance of a Bengali interpreter. The hearing was adjourned to 11 March 2026. At the adjourned hearing, the applicant said that she has two babies and she wishes to have permission to stay until they become adult. After that, she can go back to her home country.

DISCUSSION & DISPOSITION

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 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.

9.  The matters raised in the Applicant’s Notice of Appeal and written submissions are directed at the Director and the Board, and they are all general allegations without particulars. What she added by way of oral submissions did not add anything to her appeal. They do not constitute any valid grounds of appeal against the Judge’s decision.

10.  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.

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