CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST No. 524 of 2021
|
BETWEEN
|
| |
Miah Md Manik alias Mia Md Manik |
Applicant |
| |
and |
|
| |
Torture Claims Appeal Board/
Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office |
Putative
Respondent |
| |
and |
|
| |
Director of Immigration |
Putative |
| |
|
Interested Party |
Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review
NOTIFICATION of the Judge’s decision (Ord. 53 r. 3)
Following;
Order by Deputy High Court Judge (Non-refoulement Claims) Val Chow:
1. Form 86 be amended on the court’s own motion that the Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office be named as the Putative Respondent; and
2. The application for leave to apply for judicial review be dismissed.
Observations for the Applicant:
Introduction
1. By Form 86 filed on 14 April 2021 (the “Form 86”), the Applicant sought 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 8 April 2021 (the “Board’s Decision”).
2. To properly name the proposed respondent, I make an order to amend the Form 86 accordingly on the court’s own motion.
3. An oral hearing was requested by the Applicant. It took place before me on 23 December 2025 (the “Hearing”) and the Applicant attended in person.
Background
4. The Applicant’s background, the basis and history of his claim and the arguments he advanced had been set out in details in the Board’s Decision, and it is not necessary for me to repeat the same here. The hyperlink to the Board’s Decision is included below[1] for reference. The basis of the Applicant’s claim is that he would be harmed or killed if he were to return to Bangladesh because he was targeted by his political enemies from the Awami League (“AL”), a rival political party which became the ruling party of Bangladesh in about late 2018/early 2019.
Discussion
5. This type of leave application is intended to be a filtering process and elaborate reasons are not necessary, see Re Zunariyah [2018] HKCA 14, at §23. Hence I shall set out the brief reasons for my decision hereinbelow.
6. It is trite law that determination of the merits of a non-refoulement claim is essentially within the remit of the Director of Immigration and the Board, who are the primary decision-makers in the evaluation of the evidence based on the materials available to them. It is not the role of the court to take over their primary decision-making role in a judicial review, which is not an avenue for revisiting the assessment by the Board in the hope that the court may consider the matter afresh in the absence of any legal error: see Re Lakhwinder Singh [2018] HKCA 246; Re Daljit Singh [2018] HKCA 328; Re Mudannayakalage Chaminda Pushpa Kumara [2018] HKCA 400; and Nupur Mst v Director of Immigration [2018] HKCA 524.
7. It is also well-established that, an applicant, even if unrepresented, is required to properly set out the grounds of judicial review in the Form 86, and to fully and frankly disclose all material facts and potential legal answers, see: Ho Loy & Another v Director of Environmental Protection (HCAL 21/2015, 22 December 2016) per Chow J (as he was then) at §142. Yet, the Applicant has completely failed to identify any grounds of review in his Form 86 and affirmation in support.
8. At the Hearing, the Applicant just said that he wanted to stay in Hong Kong.
9. In any event, I have considered the Board’s Decision in detail. I do not find any error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality. There is nothing to indicate that the Board had failed to take into account any relevant matters or that it had taken into account irrelevant matters.
10. The Board’s Decision was comprehensive with adequate reasons provided. In particular, the Board was plainly correct in finding that there is no evidence of any real risk of serious harm, having regard to (amongst others) that, even after taking into account the Applicant’s loss of memory, the Board was entitled to find that the Applicant’s factual account was incredible as he gave unsatisfactory evidence on material events such as his whereabouts after the alleged assault on him in July 2019 (§§41, 62-70).
11. There is no reason to believe that the Applicant cannot safely relocate to other parts of his home country. Taken at its highest, the Applicant was a relatively junior member of a rival political party to the AL, there is no basis to believe that the AL or its associates would have any real interest to pursue the Applicant outside his home area. The Applicant, as an able-bodied adult with reasonable business experience, should have no difficulty relocating to other places such as large cities like Faridpur (where his family was allegedly residing). There is no evidence that he would face any persecution or harm after relocation (§§71-74).
12. In such circumstances, the Board’s Decision satisfies the enhanced Wednesbury test and is not Wednesbury unreasonable or irrational.
13. In short, I am not satisfied that the Applicant’s intended challenge of the Board’s Decision is reasonably arguable with any realistic prospects of success. Accordingly, I refuse to grant leave for judicial review.
Conclusion
14. In the premises, I make an order that the Form 86 be amended as described above and the Leave Application be dismissed.
Dated the 2nd day of February 2026
| |
(Annson Cheung)
for Registrar, High Court
|
Where leave to apply has been granted, Applicants and their legal advisers are reminded of their obligation to reconsider the merits of their application in the light of the Respondent’s evidence
Notes for the Applicant:
If leave has been granted, the Applicant or the Applicant’s solicitors must:
|
|
|
|
|
a) serve on the respondent and such interested parties as may be directed by the Court the order granting leave and any directions given within 14 days after the leave was granted (Order 53, rule 4A);
b) issue the originating summons within 14 days after the grant of leave and serve it in accordance with Order 53, rule 5; and
c) supply to every other party copies of every affidavit which the Applicant proposes to use at the hearing, including the affidavit in support of the application for leave (Order 53, rule 6(5)).
|
|
Sent to the Applicant
on 2nd February 2026
Miah Md Manik alias Mia Md Manik
Applicant’s ref. no:
Nil |
|
Sent to the Putative Respondent / the Putative Respondent’s solicitors / such Putative Interested Parties as may be directed by the Court / the Putative Interested Parties’ solicitors on 2nd February 2026
Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office
Putative Respondent’s ref. no.:
USM 17257/20/10/6/B2178
Director of Immigration
Putative Interested Party’s ref. no.:
QA T/C 436/20 (formerly RBCZ 10359/20) (PSO)
Department of Justice,
Senior Assistant Law Officer
(Civil Law)
(Civil Litigation Unit 2) |
Form CALL-1