KHATUN MST REHANA v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

CACV 329/2025, [2026] HKCA 777

On appeal from [2025] HKCFI 1861

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 329 OF 2025

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 186 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)  Teresa Wu (“the Judge”)  dated 13 May 2025[1](“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 10 January 2020 (“the Board’s Decision”)  whereby the Board dismissed her appeal against the decision of the Director of Immigration (“the Director”)  dated 21 September 2018 (“the Director’s Decision”).

BACKGROUND

2.  The applicant is a national of Bangladesh.  She lodged a non-refoulement claim with the Immigration Department on the basis that, if refouled, she would be harmed or killed by her violent ex-husband with strong political background, some local villagers over a monetary dispute, and her paternal uncle over a land dispute.  The applicant’s non-refoulement claim was rejected by the Director, and the 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.

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.

THE APPEAL

4.  By a notice of appeal filed on 26 May 2025, the applicant sought to appeal the Judge’s decision to this court.  For the grounds of appeal, the applicant stated that (sic)  “I am disagree with the decision maker authorities. The decision made be Direction of Immigration, As well as the decision made by Torture Claim Appeal Board. I do not think my claim determined fairly.”

5.  The appeal was scheduled to be heard on 25 February 2026. The applicant has failed to lodge any skeleton argument in support of her appeal in accordance with the directions given by the Registrar of Civil Appeals on 22 December 2025.  Accordingly, the applicant is deemed to have waived her 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 28 January 2026.

DISCUSSION & DISPOSITION

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 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.

8.  In the present case, the Judge found no error of law or procedural unfairness or irrationality in the decision of the Board.  The notice of appeal contains no viable grounds of appeal.

9.  For the above reasons, the applicant’s appeal is devoid of merits.  We dismiss it accordingly