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

CACV 189/2026, [2026] HKCA 791

On Appeal From [2026] HKCFI 921

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 189 OF 2026

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO. 624 OF 2021)

____________________

________________

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 (Non-refoulement Claims) Jeffrey Chau (“Judge”) dated 16 February 2026 (“Order”) refusing to extend time for the Applicant to apply for judicial review of the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office (“Board”) dated 19 November 2020 (“Board’s Decision”) and dismissing the leave application.

Background

2.  The Applicant is a national of Bangladesh. On 14 March 2013, he lodged with the Director of Immigration (“Director”) a torture risk claim. It was rejected by the Director on 12 September 2013 and the rejection was not challenged. On 19 November 2013, the Applicant lodged a non-refoulement claim on the basis that, if refouled, he would be harmed or killed by his enemies who are affiliated with the ruling party, the Awami League. The Applicant’s claim was rejected by the Director on 24 October 2018, and the appeal against the Director’s decision was rejected by the Board on 19 November 2020. Details of the Applicant’s claim and the Board’s reasons for rejecting the Applicant’s appeal can be found in the Board’s Decision, the hyperlink to which can be found in the CALL-1 Form dated 16 February 2026[1].

3.  The Applicant’s application for leave to apply for judicial review was out of time for nearly 3 months. The Judge refused to grant extension of time for the Applicant to make his leave application and refused the same on 16 February 2026. 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 March 2026, the Applicant states the following :

“1. Failure to consider the country of origin condition info the (COI) information that the Authority of my country would not able to protect me from enemies.

2. Failure to consider my claim under BOR 2 and BOR 3 risk, that my life still will be at risk.

3. Failure to consider my fear that my life still will be danger upon refolement” (sic)

5.  In the skeleton submission filed on 16 March 2026, the Applicant essentially argues that:

(1)  The assessors held that the Applicant’s claim was not established as his “fear is too low” but his life is still in danger or his fear still continues if refouled.

(2)  The decision makers failed to take into account relevant considerations or took into account irrelevant considerations.

(3)  The assessors did not inquire into the Applicant’s fear raised in his claim and the country of origin information clearly showed that the authority of his home country would not be able to protect him from his enemies.

(4)  The Applicant’s claim is based on a true story of his life, and the decision makers did not observe his fear.

(5)  The Judge did not observe the Applicant’s fear properly.

(6)  The Judge erred in applying an incorrect test for non-refoulement claim, and treating credibility findings as conclusive determination rather than part of a holistic risk assessment.

(7)  The decision makers misinterpreted statutory thresholds, applied an incorrect legal test, or failed to apply relevant international law principles.

(8)  The decision makers failed to give adequate opportunity to the Applicant to present evidence, failed to consider submissions, or relied on new material without notice.

(9)  The decision makers’ conclusions are not supported by any evidence, or they are Wednesbury unreasonable.

(10)  The decision makers ignored credible documentary or witness evidence, mischaracterised testimony, or relied on irrelevant facts.

(11)  The decision makers shifted the burden improperly to the Applicant or imposed an unduly high standard.

(12)  The decision makers omitted to assess up-to-date country conditions or to give proper weight to corroborative reports.

(13)  The decision makers’ conclusions conflict with the Basic Law or the Applicant’s rights under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

6.  The Applicant was absent at the hearing of this appeal.

Legal Principles

7.  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)).

8.  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

9.  All the matters raised in the Applicant’s Notice of Appeal and skeleton submission are general allegations without particulars. They do not constitute any valid grounds of appeal against the Order.

10.  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.

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