SAKIB, MD SAJIB SHAK v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD

CACV 19/2026, [2026] HKCA 387

On Appeal From [2025] HKCFI 6372

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 19 OF 2026

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 2134 OF 2025)

________________________

________________________

________________________

J U D G M E N T

________________________

Hon Eugene Fung J (giving the Judgment of the Court):

1.  This is the applicant’s appeal against the order of Deputy High Court Judge Michael Wong (“the Judge”)  dated 30 December 2025 ([2025] HKCFI 6372)  (“the Leave Decision”)  refusing his application for extension of time, and his substantive application, for leave to apply for judicial review (“the Leave Application”)  against the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office (“the Board”)  dated 6 February 2025 (“the Board’s Decision”), whereby the Board dismissed his appeal/petition against the decision of the Director of Immigration (“the Director”)  dated 12 June 2024, refusing his non-refoulement claim.

2.  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 [17]-[18], [44]-[57] of the Leave Decision. 

3.  The applicant claimed that he entered Hong Kong illegally on 30 October 2023 and was arrested on the same day.  On 18 November 2023, he lodged a non-refoulement claim.  The basis of his claim is that if he were to return to Bangladesh, he will be harmed or killed by the people of the Awami League.

4.  The Judge also sets out in detail the grounds advanced by the applicant in support of the Leave Application and his reasons for refusing the Leave Application: see [23] - [60] of the Leave Decision.  We will not repeat the details herein.

5.  By the Notice of Appeal filed on 9 January 2026, the applicant stated the following:-

“Sir I am disagree with the decision maker authorities. They make decision totally unfair, they not give me justice. Sir decision maker make decision same Torture Claims Appeal Board and Director of Immigration. Sir my country police not help us then I come here for safety of my life. I do not think my case determined fairly.”

6.  In his written submissions, the applicant asserted, amongst other things, that (1)  the decisions of the Director and the Board were wrong and Wednesbury unreasonable; (2)  his “right of life” must be protected; (3)  the Director failed to appreciate or give proper important or weight to his arguments and evidence; (4)  the Board placed too much reliance on country of origin information and Board’s Decision was irrational.

7.  At the hearing, the applicant stated that he had recently posted on social media that he had voted for the Bangladesh Nationalist Party and that his life would be threatened if he were to return home.

DISCUSSION

8.  The relevant legal principles governing appeals in non-refoulement cases are set out in Nupur Mst v Director of Immigration [2018] HKCA 524 at [14].

9.  In particular, in an appeal against refusal of leave to apply for judicial review in non-refoulement cases, 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.  The Court’s role is not to examine the decision maker’s decision afresh as if it were a fresh application for judicial review.  See Nupur Mst v Director of Immigration [2018] HKCA 524 at [14(6)].

10.  In light of the above, it is thus incumbent on the applicant to point out the errors in the Leave Decision with sufficient particulars.

11.  However, nowhere in his Notice of Appeal or written submission has the applicant identified any error committed by the Judge.  His assertions are all general, bare and vague allegations unsupported by specific particulars or evidence.  General assertions of his fear if refouled do not constitute proper grounds of appeal: Re Saldua Dorothy Trifalgar [2022] HKCA 627 at [6].  The Court will not usurp the role of the Board.  Assessment of evidence, country of origin information materials, 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.  No such error was demonstrated by the applicant.  Clearly, his assertions do not constitute viable grounds of appeal. We see no basis to interfere with the Leave Decision.

12.  For the above reasons, the applicant’s appeal against the Leave Decision has no merit and is dismissed.