|
HCAL 1487/2025
[2026] HKCFI 2851
IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST No. 1487 of 2025
|
BETWEEN
|
| |
Sikdar Akib Jawad |
Applicant |
| |
and |
|
| |
Torture Claims Appeal Board/ |
Putative |
| |
Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office |
Respondent |
| |
and |
|
| |
Director of Immigration |
Putative |
| |
|
Interested Party |
Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review
NOTIFICATION of the Judge’s decision (Ord. 53 r. 3)
Following;
Order by Deputy High Court Judge K.W. Lung:
Leave to apply for Judicial Review be refused.
Observations for the Applicant:
THE APPLICATION
1. The applicant applies for leave to apply for judicial review of the Decision dated 4 June 2025 of the Torture Claims Appeal Board (“the Board’s Decision”), dismissing the appeal against the Director’s Decision as described below.
2. The applicant appeared before the Court on 11 May 2026.
The applicant
3. The applicant is a national of Bangladesh. He is an illegal immigrant. He lodged a non-refoulement claim with the Director of Immigration (“the Director”) on the basis that, if refouled, he will be arrested for drug trafficking, election rigging and murder and he will be harmed or killed by the victim’s family.
4. Details of his claim are set out in the Board’s Decision. See hyperlink. https://legalref.judiciary.hk/doc/judg/html/vetted/other/en/2025/HCAL001487_2025_files/the_Board's_Decision.pdf
The Director’s Decision
5. The Director considered the applicant’s claim in relation to the following risks:
a. risk of torture under Part VIIC of the Immigration Ordinance, Cap. 115, (“the Ordinance”) (“Torture risk”);
b. risk of violation of the right to life under Article 2 of Section 8 of the Hong Kong Bill of Rights Ordinance, Cap. 383 (“HKBOR”) (“BOR 2 risk”);
c. risk of torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment (“CIDTP”) under Article 3 of Section 8 of the HKBOR (“BOR 3 risk”); and
d. risk of persecution by reference to the non-refoulement principle under Article 33 of the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees and its 1967 Protocol (“Refugee Convention”) (“Persecution risk”).
6. By way of Notice of Decision dated 10 July 2024 (“the Director’s Decision”), the Director dismissed the applicant’s claim on all applicable risks because it was unsubstantiated.
The Board’s Decision
7. The applicant appealed the Director’s Decision to the Board. On 21 November 2024, the Board conducted an oral hearing for his appeal. He had given oral evidence and answered the Board’s questions.
8. Having considered the evidence, the Board made the findings below.
(1) There are a number of inconsistencies in the applicant’s evidence. [48] Seeparagraph 48-68.
(2) Because of the gaps, inconsistencies and other problems with his evidence, the Board rejected his evidence in its entirety. [69]
(3) There is no real risk that the applicant would face of any of the applicable risks if he returns to Bangladesh. [70]
9. For the reasons above, the Board dismissed his appeal and affirmed the Director’s Decision.
Application for leave to apply for judicial review of the Board’s Decision
10. The applicant has filed Form 86 dated 27 June 2025 for leave to apply for judicial review of the Board’s Decision.
11. In support of his application, the applicant raised the grounds below to challenge the Board’s Decision.
(1) The Board fettered its discretion by refusing his appeal.
(2) The adjudicator dealt with his case in an unfair manner.
(3) The Board’s Decision is unreasonable or irrational.
(4) The Board failed to meet greater care duty owed due to a self-represented claimant.
(5) He was not legally represented for his appeal or given legal advice.
(6) The hearing bundle was given to him near the hearing. He does not understand and was not given sufficient time to prepare for his appeal.
(7) The Board’ Decision was not notified to him by phone though he had requested.
(8) The Board had relied on the source of the news not officially recognized or it is simply hearsay. It had also considered outdated cases, resulting in making speculation that it is safe for him to return to his country.
(9) The Board did not consider his evidence.
(10) The Board’s Decision is therefore wrong.
DISCUSSION
12. The role of this Court is supervisory, meaning that it ensures that the Board complied with the public law requirements in coming to the Board’s Decision on the applicant’s appeal. The Court will not usurp the fact-finding power vested in the Director and the Board. See TK v Michael C Jenkins Esq and Director of Immigration [2013] 1 HKC 526, §40 and Nupur Mst v Director of Immigration [2018] HKCA 524, §14 (1).
13. The Court will bear in mind that the Board’s Decision should be examined with rigorous examination and anxious scrutiny. Before me, the applicant complained that the Board did not accept his evidence.
14. In Re: Kartini [2019] HKCA 1022, 9 September 2019, the Court of Appeal held:
“13. (1) … …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.”
15. Those grounds under paragraph 11 do not assist the applicant. All grounds except (5)-(7) are bare assertions or his opinions without any evidence in support. They are not valid to challenge the Director’s Decision[1]. Ground (5) fails as he was not entitled to free legal representation at all stages of the proceedings[2]. Ground (6) is not valid as he did not apply to the Board for time to prepare for his appeal. Ground (7) is not a reason in support of his application because the law does not provide right for him to ask the Board to notify him by phone. He was given the Board’s Decision by post. His complaint before the Court also fails because it is within the Board’s discretion to assess the evidence and determine what evidence should be accepted.
16. The applicant fails to show that he has any realistic prospect of success in his proposed judicial review of the Board’s Decision.
DISPOSITION
17. I refuse to grant leave to the applicant to apply for judicial review of the Board’s Decision. Accordingly, I dismiss his application.
Dated the 20th day of May 2026
| |
(Allen LEE)
for Registrar, High Court
|
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
Notes for the Applicant:
If leave has been granted, the Applicant or the Applicant’s solicitors must:
|
|
|
|
|
a) serve on the respondent and such interested parties as may be directed by the Court the order granting leave and any directions given within 14 days after the leave was granted (Order 53, rule 4A);
b) issue the originating summons within 14 days after the grant of leave and serve it in accordance with Order 53, rule 5; and
c) supply to every other party copies of every affidavit which the Applicant proposes to use at the hearing, including the affidavit in support of the application for leave (Order 53, rule 6(5)).
|
|
Sent to the Applicant
on 20/5/2026
Sikdar Akib Jawad
Applicant’s ref. no:
Nil. |
|
Sent to the Putative Respondent / the Putative Respondent’s solicitors / such Putative Interested Parties as may be directed by the Court / the Putative Interested Parties’ solicitors on 20/5/2026
Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office
Putative Respondent’s ref. no.: USM 24217
Director of Immigration
Putative Interested Party’s ref. no.: INCL-0000787-24(4) (CZ)
Department of Justice,
Senior Assistant Law Officer
(Civil Law)
(Civil Litigation Unit 2) |
Form CALL-1
[1] The Court of Appeal in Salim Ahmed alias MD Salim [2020] HKCA 244 held:
“20. … … general assertions or propositions of law cannot assist an appellant when he fails to condescend to the requisite particulars related to the facts of his case: Re Mizan Sikder [2019] HKCA 20 and Ibrahim v Simon Russell [2019] HKCA 1327.” See also Re Haider Khalil [2021] HKCA 223 [16].”
[2] The Court of Appeal in Re Ahmed Syed Rafiq [2018] HKCA 178, Hon Lam & Chu JA, 26 March 2018, held:
“22. This Court has repeatedly held that neither the high standard of fairness laid down in Secretary for Security v Sakthevel Prabakar (2004) 7 HKCFAR 187 nor the judgment of FB v Director of Immigration HCAL 51 of 2007 prescribed that a CAT claimant or a claimant for BOR 2 or BOR 3 or persecution risks must have an absolute right to free legal representation at all stages of the proceedings: Re Zunariyah [2018] HKCA 14, Re Zahid Abbas [2018] HKCA 15, Re Tariq Farhan [2018] HKCA 17, and Re Lopchan Subash [2018] HKCA 37. The applicant already had the benefit of legal representation in presenting his case to the Director of Immigration. We do not find anything amiss arising from lack of legal representation in the process before the Board.”
|