HOSSAIN MOLLAH alias HOSSIN v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD

CACV 464/2025, [2026] HKCA 648

On Appeal From [2025] HKCFI 2598

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 464 OF 2025

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO. 3893 OF 2019)

________________________

________________________

________________________

J U D G M E N T

________________________

Hon Anthony Chan JA (giving the Judgment of the Court)  :

Introduction

1.  This is the Applicant’s appeal against the order of Deputy High Court Judge Michael Wong (“Judge”)  dated 24 June 2025 (“Order”)  refusing to grant leave to apply for judicial review of the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office (“Board”)  dated 20 December 2019 (“Board’s Decision”).

Background

2.  The Applicant is a national of Bangladesh. On 28 August 2008, the Applicant lodged a non-refoulement claim on the basis that, if refouled, he would be harmed or killed by the people of the Awami League (“AL”)  because he supported the Bangladesh Nationalist Party (“BNP”)  even though he had no political affiliation.  The Applicant’s claim was rejected by the Director of Immigration (“Director”)  on 24 June 2014[1] and 10 January 2017[2], and the appeals against the Director’s decisions were rejected by the Board on 9 March 2015[3] and 20 December 2019 respectively.  Details of the Applicant’s claim and the Board’s reasons for rejecting the Applicant’s appeals can be found in the Board’s Decisions, the hyperlink to which can be found in the CALL-1 Form dated 24 June 2025[4].

3.  The Applicant’s application for leave to apply for judicial review was refused by the Judge on 24 June 2025.  Details of the Judge’s reasons for refusing to grant leave can be found in the CALL-1 Form. 

Grounds of Appeal

4.  In the Notice of Appeal filed on 2 July 2025, the Applicant states the following :

“I don’t accept the decision of the Court of First Instance because the learned Judge consider my problem lightly. This decision is unfair and my life is still in danger in my home country. If I return there I will be killed by my enemies.” (sic)

5.  The Applicant has failed to lodge written submissions in support of his appeal in accordance with the directions given by the Registrar of Civil Appeals on 3 March 2026.  Accordingly, the Applicant is deemed to have waived the right to have an oral hearing of the appeal and elected to have the appeal disposed of on paper.  Having considered the documents before us, we consider that it is appropriate to deal with the Applicant’s appeal on paper without an oral hearing.

Legal Principles

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. 

Discussion and Disposition

8.  All the matters raised in the Applicant’s Notice of Appeal are general allegations without particulars.  They do not constitute any valid grounds of appeal against the Judge’s decision.

9.  The Applicant has failed to identify or show any error in the Judge’s decision refusing to grant leave to apply for judicial review, or raise any viable ground of appeal against the Order. 

10.  The Applicant’s appeal has no merit, and is dismissed with no order as to costs.