SIDDIKA KHADIZA v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

HCAL 747/2022

[2026] HKCFI 4151

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST No 747 of 2022

Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review

NOTIFICATION of the Judge’s decision (Ord 53 r 3)

Following;

	consideration of documents only;          or
	consideration of the documents and oral submissions by the Applicant in open court;

1.  Form 86 be amended, naming only the Director of Immigration as the Putative Interested Party.

2.  The application for leave to apply for judicial review be dismissed.

Observations for the Applicant:

Introduction

1.  By Form 86 dated 10 August 2022 (“Form 86”), the Applicant seeks leave to apply for judicial review (“Leave Application”) against the Decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-Refoulement Claims Petition Office (“Board”) dated 5 August 2022 (“Board’s Decision”), which affirmed the Decision of the Director of Immigration (“Director”) dated 30 June 2017.

2.  In the Form 86, the Applicant named both the Board and the Director as the putative interested parties. I therefore amend the Form 86 on my own motion to name only the Director as the putative interested party.

3.  An oral hearing, which was requested by the Applicant, took place before me on 27 February 2026. The Applicant attended in person.

4.  At the hearing, the Applicant indicated that she had nothing to add to the papers submitted for her Leave Application.

Background

5.  The Applicant is from Bangladesh. Her background and the basis of her application for non-refoulement were set out in detail in the Board’s Decision at this hyperlink.[1]  I will not repeat them here. Unless otherwise specified, I adopt the abbreviations in the Board’s Decision.

6.  In short, the Applicant claimed to be in fear of being harmed by her uncle’s second wife (one “Ms D”) and Ms D’s associates for her father’s support in the case against Ms D over the murder of the uncle.

Discussion

7.  Leave application is meant to be a filtering process and the court is not expected to give elaborate reasons for its decision: Re Zunariyah [2018] HKCA 14 at §23. I therefore set out below brief reasons for my decision, which I have reached upon considering all the materials before me.

8.  The court’s role in judicial review is not to provide a further avenue of appeal. The primary decision makers are the Director and the Board. While the court adopts in non-refoulement cases an enhanced standard in scrutinising the decision of the Board due to the seriousness of the issue at hand, it should not usurp the role of the Board. Assessment of evidence and COI materials and 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: Nupur Mst v Director of Immigration [2018] HKCA 524 at §14(1). There must be a reasonably arguable case, namely one which enjoys a realistic prospect of success, before leave for judicial review will be granted: Peter Po Fun Chan v Winnie Cheung (2007) 10 HKCFAR 676 at §§14-17.

9.  The Applicant has set out her intended grounds of challenge against the Board’s Decision, including breach of procedural fairness, irrationality, unlawful fettering of discretion, failure to meet “the greater care and duty owed to a self-represented claimant”, failure to analyse the Applicant’s factual claims or supporting documents, reliance on inappropriate or outdated materials etc. She has not, however, explained how these grounds are made out with specific references to the Board’s Decision.

10.  In any case, I have reviewed the Board’s Decision and I do not detect any error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality. In particular:

(1)  The Board considered the evidence in detail before coming to the view that the Applicant does not face a real risk of harm from the individuals she claims to fear: §96. For example, the Applicant’s father continues to live in the village and has not been seriously harmed at any time: §85. The Applicant’s siblings have not been harmed either: §92.

(2)  In any event, the Board, having considered the COI, regarded that reasonable state protection would be available to the Applicant if necessary: §95.

(3)  Further, the Board considered that it was feasible for her to relocate internally to Dhaka, considering her education, work experience and the fact that she had temporarily resided in Dhaka before: §98.

Conclusion

11.  For the above reasons, I make an order that the Form 86 be amended in the manner set out above and that the Leave Application be dismissed.

Where leave to apply has been granted, Applicants and their legal advisers are reminded of their obligation to reconsider the merits of their application in the light of the Respondent’s evidence

Form CALL-1