RAHAMAN LUTFOR v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

CACV 977/2025, [2026] HKCA 532

On appeal from [2025] HKCFI 4955

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 977 OF 2025

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO. 1670 OF 2020)

__________________________

__________________________

________________

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 (Non-refoulement Claims) Vincent Lung (“the Judge”) dated 23 October 2025 (“the Order”) refusing to extend time for the application to apply for leave to judicially review the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office (“the Board”) dated 22 June 2020 (“the Board’s Decision”) whereby the Board dismissed his appeals against the decisions of the Director of Immigration dated 2 May 2017 (“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 by members of the Awani League because the applicant was a member of a rival political party Islam Chhatra Shitber, a student wing of the Jamaet-e-Islam Party which was in a political alliance with the Bangladesh Nationalist Party. Details of the applicant’s claim and the Board’s reasons for rejecting the applicant’s appeals can be found in the Board’s Decision.  

GROUNDS OF APPEAL

3.  By a notice of appeal filed on 6 November 2025, the applicant sought to appeal the Judge’s decision to this court. For the grounds of appeal, the applicant stated that:

“I do not agree with the decision of the Court of First Instance because I have severe problem in my home country. If I go back there I will be killed by my enemies.”

4.  In the applicant’s skeleton argument lodged on 5 March 2026, he reiterated his claim and that his life would be at risk if refouled. He also disputed the Judge’s decision as unreasonable, for not having applied the principle of procedural fairness and the high standard of fairness but without particulars.

5.  The appeal was heard on 23 March 2026. The applicant attended the hearing in person with the assistance of a Bengali interpreter and confirmed that he has nothing further to add.

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

DISCUSSION & DISPOSITION

8.  In the present case, no error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the decision of the Board was detected by the Judge or was pointed out by the applicant apart from the bare assertions as stated in his grounds of appeal and in his skeleton argument, which were not substantiated with any specific information or elaboration. Nor did he provide any explanation for his reasons for his late application.

9.  It is incumbent on the applicant to point out the Judge's errors with sufficient particulars. In our view, the matters set out in the applicant’s notice of appeal and skeleton argument failed to identify any error on the part of the Judge with meaningful particulars. 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.