RE HOSSAIN NAYNA

CACV 119/2025, [2025] HKCA 759

On Appeal From [2025] HKCFI 606

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 119 OF 2025

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO. 2384 OF 2019)

________________________

________________________

________________________

J U D G M E N T

________________________

Hon K Yeung J (giving the Judgment of the Court)  :

1)  The appeal

1.  This is an appeal by the applicant against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge KW Lung of 4 March 2025 in which he refused to grant leave to her to apply for judicial review (the “Judge’s Decision”).

2.  This appeal was scheduled to be heard on 30 July 2025.  Despite the directions from the Court to the applicant dated 9 June 2025 (“Directions”), the applicant failed to lodge written submission by the stipulated time.  Accordingly by [4] of the Directions, the hearing of the appeal was vacated and the Court will now deal with this appeal on paper. 

2)  Background

3.  The applicant is a national of Bangladesh.  She last arrived in Hong Kong in May 2014 to work as a domestic helper.  In June 2014 her employment contract was prematurely terminated and the applicant had overstayed since July 2014.  She applied for non-refoulement protection in August 2017[1].

4.  The basis of the applicant’s claim is that she would be harmed or killed by members of the Awami League because of her family ties with the Bangladesh Nationalist Party, and because her father had failed to give protection money to the Awami League[2].

5.  The background facts have been summarized in the Judge’s Decision at [4] to [9].

3)  The Director’s Decision

6.  The Director of Immigration (the “Director”)  decided against the applicant’s non-refoulement claim on 31 May 2018.  The decision covered Bill of Rights Article 2 (right to life)  risk, Bill of Rights Article 3 (torture/inhuman treatment)  risk as well as other statutory and convention rights against torture and persecution[3] (the “Director’s Decision”).

4)  The Board’s Decision

7.  The applicant appealed/petitioned against the Director’s Decision to the Torture Claims Appeal Board (the “Board”)[4]. After a hearing held on 24 May 2019, the Board dismissed the applicant’s appeal/petition on 26 July 2019 (the “Board’s Decision”).

8.  The Board’s finding is summarized in the Judge’s Decision at [12]-[16].

5)  The Judge’s Decision

9.  The applicant filed her Form 86 and affirmation on 19 August 2019.  She raised various grounds in support of her application for judicial review.  The Judge addressed them at [18] and [22] of the Judge’s Decision.

10.  The Judge held that the applicant failed to show any realistic prospect of success in her proposed judicial review - see the Judge’s Decision at [23].

6)  Grounds of appeal

11.  The applicant in the notice of appeal stated the following (all mistakes being original)  :

‘1. The Torture Claims Appeal Board and the Director of Immigration are completely failed to assessed my fear, that why I would not return to my country of origin.

2.  Failure to properly assessed my claim under BOR 2 and BOR 3 risk, that I would be face a torture risk upon refoulement to my country of origin.’

7)  Our view

12.  We are of the view that the applicant’s appeal is without merits.  The grounds of appeal consist of bare allegation with no particulars or specifics.  The applicant provided no reasonably arguable grounds for judicial review.  An appeal against refusal of leave for judicial review is not an occasion for the applicant to regurgitate arguments already advanced.  The Court of Appeal would only reverse the decision of the Judge if it could be demonstrated that there were errors in law, that the Judge failed to take into account relevant matters, or the decision was otherwise plainly wrong: see United Muslim Association of Hong Kong v Yusuf Yu [2018] HKCA 451 at [38] and [39].

13.  It is thus incumbent on the applicant to point out with sufficient particularity the errors allegedly committed by the Judge in assessing the Board’s Decision.  None of the arguments raised by the applicant shows the Judge has made any error of law. 

14.  We see no basis to disturb the Judge’s Decision. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal.