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

CAMP 177/2025, [2026] HKCA 158

On An Intended Appeal From [2025] HKCFI 2479 &

[2025] HKCFI 3706

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO 177 OF 2025

(ON AN INTENDED APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 3737 OF 2019)

________________________

________________________

_______________

J U D G M E N T

_______________

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

1.  This is the Applicant’s renewed application for an extension of time to appeal against the order of Deputy High Court Judge (Non-Refoulement Claims) Philips Wong (“the Judge”) dated 16 June 2025 ([2025] HKCFI 2479) (“the Order”) refusing to grant leave to the Applicant to apply for judicial review of the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office (“the Board”) dated 5 December 2019 (“the Board’s Decision”), whereby the Board dismissed the Applicant’s appeal against the decision of the Director of Immigration (“the Director”) dated 11 May 2017.

2.  Having considered the documents, we are of the view that it is appropriate to determine this application on paper without a hearing under Order 59, Rule 14A of the Rules of the High Court, Cap 4A.

3.  The Applicant alleges that, if refouled to Bangladesh, he will be harmed or killed by a member (Tara Mia) (“Tara”) of the Bangladesh Awami League living in the same village as the Applicant because of the Applicant’s involvement in the Bangladesh Nationalist Party and/or his refusal to accede to Tara’s demands for money[1]. The Applicant’s background, the basis and procedural history of his claim, the findings of the Board as well as the Board’s reasons for dismissing the Applicant’s appeals against the decisions of the Director dated 22 October 2015 and 11 May 2017 have been set out in detail in an earlier decision of the Board dated 20 January 2017 and the Board’s Decision, and referred to by the Judge in the Judge’s decision (see §5 of the CALL-1 Form). We do not propose to repeat them here.

4.  The Judge’s reasons for dismissing the Applicant’s leave application are set out at §§6-18 of the CALL-1 Form. In gist, the Judge held that the contentions raised by the Applicant in the Form 86 and his supporting affirmation were unmeritorious. The Judge considered that there were no errors of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the Board’s Decision.

5.  The Applicant did not file an appeal against the Judge’s decision within the prescribed 14-day period under Order 53, Rule 3(4) of the Rules of the High Court. He made an application for an extension of time to appeal in the court below on 8 July 2025, but the application was dismissed by the Judge for the reasons set out at §§12-15 of the Judge’s decision of 29 August 2025 ([2025] HKCFI 3706), which it is not necessary to repeat here.

THIS APPLICATION

6.  By a summons taken out on 3 September 2025, the Applicant applies to the Court of Appeal for leave to appeal out of time against the Judge’s order of 29 August 2025. In the summons, he says that he was late in filing the appeal because he did not receive the decision on time.

7.  In his written submissions lodged on 16 September 2025, the Applicant makes various general allegations against the decisions of the “Assessors”, “TCAB” and “Honourable judges”, including failing to take into account relevant considerations, taking into account irrelevant considerations, failing to properly follow the high standard of fairness or inquire into his claim, and failing to consider the country of origin information (“COI”) in assessing the risk of harm to him. He asserts that he and his children could not go back to Bangladesh because state protection will not be available to him, and internal relocation will not be viable. He asserts that he will face difficulties if he has to relocate internally within Bangladesh together with his children or raise them in Bangladesh because they were born in Hong Kong out of wedlock.

DISCUSSION

8.  Following the approach in Tang Chai On v Tang Sing Ki [2016] 5 HKLRD 104, at §§3-8, we shall treat the present application as a renewed application for an extension of time to appeal against the Order.

9.  In deciding whether to extend time to appeal, the court will take into account the length of the delay, the reasons for the delay, the chances of the appeal succeeding, and the degree of prejudice to the other party if an extension of time is granted.

10.  The prospect of success of an intended appeal is important. The court will not grant an extension of time to appeal for a hopeless appeal to be pursued: Re Adumekwe Rowland Ejike [2019] HKCA 702, at §19.

11.  The Court of Appeal’s general approach in dealing with appeals in non-refoulement claims is set out in Nupur Mst v Director of Immigration [2018] HKCA 524, at §14. In particular, 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, at §14(6)).

12.  Further, the assessment of evidence, COI, 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 error of law or procedural unfairness or irrationality in the decision of the Board: Re Kartini [2019] HKCA 1022, at §13.

13.  In the present case, the Applicant’s delay of eight days (including public holiday and Sunday) is not substantial. We shall focus on the merits of the Applicant’s intended appeal.

14.  The assertions raised in the Applicant’s written submissions are all general allegations without particulars, and concern matters that fall within the province of the Board and the Director. No error of law or procedural unfairness or irrationality in the Board’s Decision is shown in the present case. The Applicant has failed to raise any valid grounds of appeal against the Judge’s decision of 16 June 2025. His assertion relating to the situation that his children may face in his home country is not substantiated by any evidence, and even if true, cannot be a ground in support of his non-refoulement claim.

15.  There is no prospect of success in the Applicant’s intended appeal. It is thus futile to grant the Applicant any extension of time to appeal against the Order.

DISPOSITION

16.  The Applicant’s summons taken out on 3 September 2025 is dismissed.