BEPARY MOHAMMAD JASIM v. NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review
NOTIFICATION of the Judge’s decision (Ord. 53 r. 3)

Following;

1.  Form 86 be amended on the court’s own motion as follows:-

a.  the Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office be named as the Putative Respondent; and

b.  the Director of Immigration be named as the Putative Interested Party.

2.  The application for leave to apply for judicial review be dismissed.

Observations for the Applicant:

Introduction

1.  By Form 86 filed on 12 April 2021 (the “Form 86”), the Applicant sought leave to apply for judicial review (the “Leave Application”) against the decision of the Non‑refoulement Claims Petition Office (the “Board”) dated 25 March 2021 (the “Board’s Decision”).

2.  To identify the Board properly, I make an order to amend the Form 86 accordingly on the court’s own motion.

3.  An oral hearing was requested by the Applicant.  It took place before me on 23 December 2025 (the “Hearing”) and the Applicant attended in person.

Background

4.  The Applicant’s background, the basis and history of his claim and the arguments he advanced had been set out in details in the Board’s Decision, and it is not necessary for me to repeat the same here.  The hyperlink to the Board’s Decision is included below[1] for reference.  In essence, the Applicant’s claim is that, if he were to return to his home country of Bangladesh, he would be killed by an individual known as “Sapon” and his associates (the “Adversaries”) as a report was made to the police that the Applicant had murdered Ripon who was Sapon’s brother.

Discussion

5.  The leave application procedure is intended to be a filtering process and elaborate reasons are not necessary, see Re Zunariyah [2018] HKCA 14, at §23.  Hence I shall set out the brief reasons for my decision below.

6.  The applicable legal principles relating to this type of applications are well established.  The judicial review is not a further avenue of appeal.  Though in non‑refoulement cases, the Court will adopt a high standard of fairness to review the decision of the Board with anxious scrutiny due to the seriousness of the issue at hand, the Court should not usurp the role of the Board.  Assessment of evidence, country of origin information (“COI”) materials, risk of harm, state protection and viability of internal relocation are primarily within the province of the Board.  The Court will not intervene by way of judicial review unless there are errors of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the decision of the Board, see Nupur Mst v Director of Immigration [2018] HKCA 524, at §14.

7.  It is trite law that, an applicant, even if unrepresented, is required to properly identify the grounds of judicial review in the Form 86, and to fully and frankly disclose all material facts and potential legal answers, see: Ho Loy & Another v Director of Environmental Protection (HCAL 21/2015, 22 December 2016) per Chow J (as he was then) at §142.  Yet, no grounds of review were put forward in the Form 86 or the Applicant’s supporting affirmation.

8.  At the Hearing, the Applicant told me that he had nothing further to add to the Leave Application.

9.  Notwithstanding the above, I have considered the Board’s Decision in detail.  I do not find any error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality.  I cannot see any basis to argue that the Board had failed to take into account any relevant matters or that it had taken into account irrelevant matters. 

10.  The Board’s Decision was comprehensive with adequate reasons provided. In particular, the Board was plainly correct in finding that there was no evidence of any real risk of serious harm to the Applicant (§64):-

(1)   The injury sustained by the Applicant at the hands of the Adversaries was at best minor (§§19, 53(b), 62-63).  The Applicant’s claim that his friends were killed by the Adversaries was a bare assertion based on hearsay evidence.  It was not supported by any objective evidence (§31).

(2)   The Applicant’s claim that the Bangladesh police was pursuing him was unreliable (§§56-61).

11.  The Board’s findings on the availability of state protection and reasonable internal relocation alternatives in Bangladesh are based on sound evidence and cannot be faulted:-

(1)   There was no evidence which showed the involvement of government authorities in the alleged persecution of the Applicant (§74). On state protection, having considered relevant Country of Origin information, the Board was entitled to form the view that adequate state protection is available in Bangladesh notwithstanding the existence of certain shortcomings in the legal system. (§§76-83).

(2)   On the availability of internal relocation alternatives, it is clear that, the Applicant, as an able-bodied young man, should have no difficulty relocating to places such as Bangladesh’s capital, Dhaka or other large cities such as Chittagong.  There is no evidence that he would face any persecution or harm after relocation (§75).

12.  In such circumstances, the Board’s Decision satisfies the enhanced Wednesbury test and is not Wednesbury unreasonable or irrational. 

13.  In short, I am not satisfied that the Applicant’s intended challenge of the Board’s Decision is reasonably arguable with any realistic prospects of success.  Accordingly, I refuse to grant leave for judicial review.

Conclusion

14.  In the premises, I make an order that the Form 86 be amended as described above and the Leave Application be dismissed.

Where leave to apply has been granted, Applicants and their legal advisers are reminded of their obligation to reconsider the merits of their application in the light of the Respondent’s evidence

Form CALL-1