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

CACV 174/2025, [2026] HKCA 432

On Appeal From [2025] HKCFI 589

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 174 OF 2025

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 3630 OF 2019)

____________

____________

_________________

J U D G M E N T

_________________

Hon G Lam JA (giving the Judgment of the Court):

Introduction

1.  This is an appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge (Non-refoulement Claims) Teresa Wu (“Judge”) on 28 March 2025 dismissing the applicant’s application for leave to apply for judicial review against the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board/adjudicator of the Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office (“Board”) dated 29 November 2019. In that decision, the Board upheld the decision of the Director of Immigration (“Director”) dated 31 December 2018 rejecting the applicant’s non-refoulement claim.

Background

2.  The applicant is a national of Bangladesh born in 1981 and his claim was made on the basis that if he returned to Bangladesh, the people of the Awami League (including 2 persons named Hasan and Rubel) would harm or kill him due to his support for the Bangladesh Nationalist Party. Details of the applicant’s background, the basis of his claim and arguments advanced before the Board as well as the Board’s reasons for rejecting his appeal are all set out in the Board’s decision: see [3] of the Form CALL-1. The Judge has set out the grounds advanced by the applicant in support of the application and her reasons for refusal of the application: see [4] – [7] of the Form CALL-1.

Appeal to this Court

3.  On 3 April 2025, the applicant filed his Notice of Appeal against the Judge’s decision. His stated grounds of appeal were, essentially, that the gravity of his circumstances were not given weight by the Director and the Board and that he should be given an opportunity to plead his case properly. The applicant also filed an affirmation on the same date in which he stated that there was a good ground of appeal that was not considered before the Judge, without providing any particulars.

4.  The applicant had initially elected for an oral hearing. By letter dated 25 September 2025, the court was notified by the Director that the applicant had been removed from Hong Kong in September 2025. As the applicant has already left Hong Kong, we shall determine the appeal on the basis of the available documents and materials.

Discussion

5.  In assessing the merits of the appeal, we shall have regard to the legal principles which this Court has adopted in dealing with appeals in non-refoulement cases: see Nupur Mst v Director of Immigration [2018] HKCA 524 at [14]; Re Md Shohel Sheak [2018] HKCA 714 at [13]; and Re Limbu Birkhaman [2019] HKCA 50 at [11]. In particular, the role of the Court in a judicial review is not to provide a further avenue of appeal. 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. In the determination of an appeal against the refusal of leave by the Court of First Instance, the Court of Appeal will 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. It is not the role of this Court to examine the decision of the Board afresh as if the appeal were a fresh application for judicial review.

6.  In the present case, the Board found that there was no real risk of harm upon refoulement as alleged, because it was a private dispute without involvement of state actors, it had not attained the minimum level of severity, reasonable protection would be available, and internal relocation in Bangladesh would not be unduly harsh for the applicant. These are findings of fact open to the Board based on the evidence it received and for the reasons it gave. The applicant has failed to show any reasonably arguable public law error in relation to the Board’s decision.

7.  Equally, the applicant has not been able to demonstrate any error in the decision of the Judge or advance any viable ground of appeal against the Judge’s decision. We are not satisfied that there is any error in the Judge’s decision.

8.  The applicant’s appeal is accordingly dismissed.