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

CACV 516/2025, [2026] HKCA 645

On Appeal From [2025] HKCFI 2725

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 516 OF 2025

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO. 2857 OF 2019)

________________________

________________________

________________________

J U D G M E N T

________________________

Hon Anthony Chan JA (giving the Judgment of the Court)  :

Introduction

1.  This is the Applicant’s appeal against the order of DHCJ Levy (“Judge”)  dated 7 July 2025 (“Order”)  refusing to grant leave to apply for judicial review of the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office (“Board”)  dated 15 August 2019 (“Board’s Decision”).

Background

2.  The Applicant is a national of Bangladesh.  On 13 June 2013, the Applicant lodged a non-refoulement claim[1] on the basis that, if refouled, he would be harmed or killed by members of the Bangladesh National Party because of the Applicant’s support for the opposing party, Awami League[2].  The Applicant’s claim was rejected by the Director of Immigration (“Director”)  on 13 July 2018, and the appeal against the Director’s decision was rejected by the Board on 15 August 2019.  Details of the Applicant’s claim and the Board’s reasons for rejecting the Applicant’s appeal can be found in the CALL-1 Form dated 7 July 2025, §§5-11 and 13. 

3.  The Applicant’s application for leave to apply for judicial review was refused by the Judge on 7 July 2025.  Details of the Judge’s reasons for refusing to grant leave can be found in the CALL-1 Form.

Grounds of Appeal

4.  In the Notice of Appeal filed on 18 July 2025, the Applicant states the following :

“I am disagree with the decision maker authorities. The decision made by the Director of Immigration, As well as the decision made by the Adjudicator of the Torture Claim Appeal Board. There is no proper investigation in my claim. My life still in danger in my home land.” (sic)

5.  In the written submissions filed on 16 March 2026, apart from reiterating his non-refoulement claim, the Applicant argues that :

(1)  The Judge’s decision to refuse his “appeal” was unreasonable.

(2)  The Judge failed to apply the principles of irrationality and fairness to the decisions of the Director and the Board.

(3)  The Judge’s decision has real and significant implications for his substantive right not to be subject to torture and his right to non-refoulement protection.

(4)  The Judge failed to exercise greater care for his problems in his home country, despite the proof submitted for his claim.

(5)  The Judge failed to analyse his claim properly.

(6)  The Board failed to give him sufficient chance to arrange relevant evidence for his claims and appeal.

(7)  The Board relied significantly on source of news which is not officially recognised or is simply hearsay.

(8)  The Board’s decision was irrational for failing to evaluate and make a finding of fact as to whether a consistent pattern of gross and mass violation of human rights and to analyse and assess whether state protection exists in his home country, and for misdirecting itself as to the extended meaning of state protection.

6.  At the hearing of this appeal, the Applicant said that he has been in Hong Kong for 20 years.  He is now 40 years old and suffering from diabetes and eye problem.  Whilst he is in Hong Kong, he has not been provided with opportunities to learn or work.  He does not know what the future will be.  The Bangladesh National Party has come into power in February.  His cousins and their families are at risk in Bangladesh.  He will be in great trouble if he returns there, and he wants to be given an opportunity to stay in Hong Kong. 

Legal Principles

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. 

Discussion and Disposition

9.  All the matters raised in the Applicant’s Notice of Appeal and written submissions are general allegations without particulars. They do not constitute any valid grounds of appeal against the Judge’s decision.

10.  The Applicant has failed to identify or show any error in the Judge’s decision refusing to grant leave to apply for judicial review, or raise any viable ground of appeal against the Order. 

11.  The Applicant’s appeal has no merit, and is dismissed with no order as to costs.