MD ALOMGIR HOSSAIN AND ANOTHER v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

CACV 1252/2025, [2026] HKCA 326

On Appeal From [2025] HKCFI 6285

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 1252 OF 2025

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 1781 OF 2020)

________________________

_____________________

________________________

JUDGMENT

________________________

Hon Chow JA (giving the Judgment of the Court):

1.  This is the 1^st and 2^nd Applicants’ appeal against the order of Deputy High Court Judge K W Lung (“the Judge”) dated 17 December 2025 (“the Order”) 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 22 June 2020 (“the Board’s Decision”), whereby the Board dismissed the Applicants’ appeal against the decision of the Director of Immigration (“the Director”) dated 28 December 2018.

2.  The 1^st and 2^nd Applicants are husband and wife respectively.  They allege that, if refouled to Bangladesh, they will be harmed or killed by the president (Badsha) of the Awami League in the local area where the 1^st Applicant operated his business[1] and also by the followers of Badsha because the Applicants were members of or affiliated with another political party, the Bangladesh Nationalist Party, and they refused to pay Badsha extortion money as demanded.  The Applicants’ backgrounds, the basis of their claims, the findings of the Board and its reasons for dismissing their appeals against the Director’s decision have been set out in detail in the Board’s Decision, and summarised by the Judge in the Judge’s decision (see §§5-11 of the CALL-1 Form).  We do not propose to repeat them here.

3.  The Judge’s reasons for dismissing the Applicants’ leave application are set out at §§14-19 of the CALL-1 Form.  In gist, the Judge held that the grounds advanced by the Applicants in the Form 86 and the supporting affirmation of the 1^st Applicant dated 7 September 2020 did not give rise to any valid grounds to challenge the Board’s Decision.  

THIS APPEAL

4.  In their Notice of Appeal filed on 30 December 2025, the Applicants state the following:

“[The Applicants] will face hardship if he is to return back to his home country and that the Torture Claims Appeal Board has significantly relied on the source of news which is not officially recognized, or is simply hearsay. They have also relied on some cases which are outdated considering the dramatic changes. The lack of credible source of information has resulted in them making groundless speculations.” [sic]

5.  The Applicants have failed to lodge written submissions in support of their appeal in accordance with the directions given by the Registrar of Civil Appeals on 30 December 2025.  Accordingly, they are deemed to have waived the right to have an oral hearing of their appeal and elected to have their appeal disposed of on paper.  Having considered the documents before us, we consider that it is appropriate to deal with the Applicants’ appeal on paper without an oral hearing. 

DISCUSSION

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.  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 are errors of law or procedural unfairness or irrationality in the decision of the Board: Re Kartini [2019] HKCA 1022, at §13.  No such error of law or procedural unfairness or irrationality in the decision of the Board is shown in the present case.

8.  The Applicants’ repetitions of their claimed fear upon refoulement and their general complaint of the Board’s reliance on unofficial and hearsay materials, the latter of which was considered and correctly rejected by the Judge for the reasons set out at §17 of the Judge’s decision, do not constitute valid grounds of appeal against the Order.

9.  The Applicants have failed to raise any viable ground of appeal against the Order.  

10.  The Applicants’ appeal has no merit, and is dismissed.

[1] See §§8.2 and 8.11 of the Director’s decision dated 28 December 2018.