CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST No. 1319 of 2021
|
BETWEEN
|
| |
Kalam Abul |
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) Lewis Law:
The application for leave to apply for judicial review be dismissed
Observations for the Applicant:
1. By a Form 86 filed on 21 September 2021 (“Form 86”), the Applicant sought leave for judicial review of the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non‑Refoulement Claims Petition Office (“TCAB”) made on 17 September 2021 (“the TCAB Decision”). A copy of the TCAB Decision can be viewed by the following hyperlink[1]. The TCAB Decision was made pursuant to a petition/appeal from a decision of the Director of Immigration (“DI”) dated 30 December 2020.
2. The Applicant is a Bangladeshi national. He claimed to be a member of a political party called Bangladesh Nationalist Party (“BNP”). His non-refoulement claim was based on an alleged risk of being harmed or killed by the people of a political party called Awami League (“AL”).
3. After an oral hearing, the TCAB was not convinced that the Applicant would be at risk of being harmed/killed by AL members. Factors taken into account including the low intensity of any past threats or incidents (those the TCAB accepted to have occurred), finding of adequate State protection (where competing country information had been considered) and reasonable internal relocation alternative.
4. The Applicant has put forward no ground of judicial review. It has been reiterated time and again that the primary responsibility for the factual assessment of whether any risk of ill-treatment exists lies with the TCAB. In the absence of any errors of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality, the Court would not reopen the TCAB’s findings or make a determination on the case afresh. The role of the Court in a judicial review is not to provide a further avenue of appeal (see Re Lakhwinder Singh [2018] HKCA 246).
5. I have reviewed the TCAB Decision vigorously, but do not find the proposed judicial review reasonably arguable. The leave application is thus dismissed.
Dated the 12th day of February 2026
| |
(Teresa Ng)
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 12 February 2026
Kalam Abul
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 12 February 2026
Torture Claims Appeal Board/ Non-Refoulement Claims Petition Office
Putative Respondent’s ref. no.:
USM 17515/21/1/11/B2197
Director of Immigration
Putative Interested Party’s ref. no.:
QA T/C 804/20 (formerly RBCZ 10667/20)
Department of Justice,
Senior Assistant Law Officer
(Civil Law)
(Civil Litigation Unit 2) |
Form CALL-1