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

CACV 724/2025, [2026] HKCA 773

On appeal from [2025] HKCFI 3863

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 724 OF 2025

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 2851 OF 2019)

__________________________

BETWEEN

__________________________

________________

JUDGMENT

________________

The Court:

Introduction

1.  This is the applicant’s appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge Levy (“the Judge”) dated 29 August 2025[1] refusing his application for leave to apply for judicial review against the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board (the “Board”) dated 20 September 2019 (the “Board’s Decision”) whereby the Board dismissed his appeal against the decision of the Director of Immigration (the “Director”) dated 22 June 2018 (the “Director’s Decision”).

The applicant’s claim and the Judge’s decision

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 members of the Awami League (“AL”) and due to his membership in the Islamic Chhatra Shibir (“CS”), which is the student wing of the rival party Jamaat-e-Islami (“JI”). The applicant’s non-refoulement claim was rejected by the Director, and his appeal against it was rejected by the Board on 20 September 2019. Details of the applicant’s claim and the Board’s reasons for rejecting the applicant’s appeal can be found in the Form CALL-1.

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 Form CALL-1.

The appeal

4.  By a notice of appeal filed on 11 September 2025, the applicant sought to appeal the Judge’s decision to this court. For the grounds of appeal, the applicant stated that (sic) “I am Disagree with The decision Maker authorities. Sir decision Maker authorities same like Torture Claim appeal Board and Immigration Director decision They not give me justice. I do not think any claim so Fast determined. I need Justice.”, but without providing any particular or elaboration.

5.  The appeal was scheduled to be heard on 10 February 2026. However, the applicant has failed to lodge any skeleton argument in support of his appeal on or before 13 January 2026 in accordance with the directions given by the Registrar of Civil Appeals on 16 December 2025. 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 the court’s letter dated 16 January 2026.

Our reasons for decision

6.  The Court of Appeal’s general approach in dealing with appeals in non-refoulement cases is 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, 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 is a fresh application for judicial review (see Nupur Mst, at §14(6)).

7.  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. In the present case, the Judge found no such error of law or procedural unfairness or irrationality in the decision of the Board. Apart from the mere assertions in his grounds of appeal, which were not substantiated with any specific information or elaboration as to how they apply to his present appeal, the applicant has failed to identify any error on the part of the Judge. In the absence of any viable ground of appeal, the applicant’s appeal is devoid of merits. We dismiss it accordingly.