JASIM alias JASIAM v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

CACV 725/2025, [2026] HKCA 120

On Appeal From [2025] HKCFI 3927

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 725 OF 2025

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 744 OF 2020)

________________________

_____________________

________________________

JUDGMENT

________________________

The Court:

INTRODUCTION

1.  This is the Applicant’s appeal against the order of DHCJ (Non-refoulement Claims) Lewis Law (“the Judge”) dated 2 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 10 December 2018 (“the Board’s Decision”).

BACKGROUND

2.  The Applicant is a national of Bangladesh. On 10 April 2013, the Applicant lodged a non-refoulement claim on the basis that, if refouled, he would be at risk of being harmed or killed by the affiliates of a political party Awami League (“AL”) for refusing to join AL.  The Applicant’s non-refoulement claim was rejected by the Director of Immigration (“the Director”) on 23 April 2018, and the appeal against the Director’s decision was rejected by the Board on 10 December 2018.  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 2 September 2025.

3.  The Applicant’s application for leave to apply for judicial review was refused by the Judge on 2 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 11 September 2025, the Applicant states the following:

“1. The TCAB and the Director did not proper consider the country of origin condition that the Authority or system in my country was not to able to protect my life from enemies.

2. The TCAB and the Director failed to proper assessed my claim under BOR 2 and BOR 3 risk.” (sic)

5.  In the skeleton submissions filed on 22 December 2025, the Applicant essentially argues the following:

(1)     The assessors held that his claim was not established as his “fear is too low” but his life is still in danger and his fear will continue if refouled.

(2)     The decision makers (i.e. the Director and the Board) failed to take into account relevant considerations or took into account irrelevant considerations.

(3)     The assessor did not inquire into his fear raised in his claim and the country of origin information clearly showed that the authority of his home country would not be able to protect him from his enemies.

(4)     His claim is based on a true story of his life, and the decision makers did not observe his fear.

(5)     The Judge did not observe his fear properly.

(6)     The Judge erred in supporting the Board’s Decision as they did not focus on his fear that his life would be in danger.

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 or procedural unfairness or irrationality in the decision of the Board: Re Kartini [2019] HKCA 1022.  

DISCUSSION & DISPOSITION

8.  The matters raised in the Applicant’s Notice of Appeal are directed at the Director and the Board whereas the complaints in the skeleton submissions are all general allegations.  They do not constitute any valid grounds of appeal against the Judge’s decision.  Furthermore, general assertions of fear if refouled do not constitute proper grounds of appeal: Re Saldua Dorothy Trifalgar [2022] HKCA 627 at [6].

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.