MOHAMMAD MORSHED v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

CACV 852/2025, [2026] HKCA 813

On appeal from [2025] HKCFI 4361

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 852 OF 2025

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 1010 OF 2020)

__________________________

BETWEEN

__________________________

________________

JUDGMENT

________________

The Court:

INTRODUCTION

1.  This is the applicant’s appeal against the order of Deputy High Court Judge Levy (“the Judge”) dated 26 September 2025, [1]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 15 May 2020 (“the Board’s Decision”) whereby the Board dismissed his appeal against the decision of the Director of Immigration (“the Director”) dated 30 January 2019 (“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 three suspects in a murder that the applicant witnessed in Bangladesh. The applicant’s non-refoulement claim was rejected by the Director, and his appeal against it 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, the hyperlink to which can be found in the Form CALL-1 dated 26 September 2025 (“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.

GROUNDS OF APPEAL

4.  By a notice of appeal filed on 8 October 2025, the applicant sought to appeal the Judge’s decision to this court. For the grounds of appeal, the applicant stated that (sic) “1. Failed to proper consider the fact I had biased in my application that the Authority of my country of origin would not able to protect me from my enimies. 2. Failed to proper observation into the country of origin condition. 3. Failed to assessed my claim under BOR2 and BOR3 risk.”

5.  The appeal was scheduled to be heard on 12 March 2026. The applicant has failed to lodge skeleton argument in support of his appeal in accordance with the directions given by the Registrar of Civil Appeals on 16 January 2026. 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 12 February 2026.

6.  The applicant only lodged his skeleton submissions on 30 January 2026, which we will consider the same out of caution. In the submissions, he reiterated his claim and that his life would be at risk if refouled, and his arguments can be summarised as follows :-

a. the assessors’ view was that his claim was not established because his fear was too low but in fact the applicant’s life is still in danger;

b. the Board and/or the Director failed to take into account relevant considerations or took into account irrelevant considerations;

c. the Board did not follow a high standard of fairness, did not inquire about his fear. The country of origin information clearly showed that no protection to the applicant would be provided. The Judge was improper to confirm the Board’s Decision;

d. the applicant does not agree that he will be safe even if he relocates to the other parts of his country;

e. the decision maker did not observe the applicant’s fear well;

f. the applicant’s claim is not a private matter;

g. the Judge applied incorrect test and relied on credibility findings;

h. the Board acted outside the scope of the Immigration Ordinance/USM by misinterpreting statutory thresholds or applying an incorrect legal test; and

i. the applicant also made further challenges such as, errors of law, breach of natural justice/procedural unfairness, irrationality/Wednesbury unreasonableness, error in fact-finding, failure to consider material evidence, misapplication of burden and standard of proof, failure to consider country information or changed circumstances, proportionality/compatibility with constitutional rights but he did not pinpoint who committed these errors or provide any information or elaborations.

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.  In the present case, the Judge found no error of law or procedural unfairness or irrationality in the decision of the Board. It is incumbent on the applicant to point out the Judge's errors with sufficient particulars and specifics. In our view, the matters set out in the applicant’s notice of appeal and written submissions failed to identify any error on the part of the Judge. They do not constitute any viable grounds of appeal and lack substance. We see no basis to interfere with the Judge’s decision.

10.  For the above reasons, the applicant’s appeal is devoid of merits. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal.