AHAMAD MD RAJU v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

CACV 976/2025, [2026] HKCA 724

On Appeal From [2025] HKCFI 5042

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 976 OF 2025

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 1093 OF 2025)

________________________

________________________

________________________

J U D G M E N T

________________________

Hon Ng J (giving the Judgment of the Court):

INTRODUCTION

1.  This is the Applicant’s appeal against the order of DHCJ KW Lung (“the Judge”)  dated 3 November 2025 (“the Order”)  refusing to grant leave to apply for judicial review of the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office (“the Board”)  dated 2 May 2025 (“the Board’s Decision”).

BACKGROUND

2.  The Applicant is a national of Bangladesh. On 5 July 2024, the Applicant first lodged a non-refoulement claim on the basis that, if refouled, he would be harmed or killed by his three paternal uncles because of a land dispute. The Applicant’s claim was rejected by the Director of Immigration (“the Director”)  on 23 January 2025, and the appeal against the Director’s decision was rejected by the Board on 2 May 2025. 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.

3.  The Applicant’s application for leave to apply for judicial review was refused by the Judge on 3 November 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 6 November 2025, the Applicant states that:

“I do not agree with the decision of the Court of First Instance because the learned Judge did not consider my leave application properly and if I return to my home country I will be killed by my enemies.”

5.  In the skeleton argument filed on 18 March 2026, apart from reiterating his non-refoulement claim, the Applicant submits inter alia that:

(1)  The Judge’s decision to refuse his appeal was unreasonable.

(2)  The Judge failed to apply the principle of irrationality.

(3)  The Judge’s decision has real and significant implications for his substantive right not to be subject to torture and his right to non-refoulement protection.

6.  The Appeal was heard on 14 April 2026. The Applicant attended the hearing in person with the assistance of a Bengali interpreter and had nothing further to add.

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 below will not intervene by way of judicial review unless there are errors of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the decision of the Board: Re Kartini [2019] HKCA 1022.  

DISCUSSION & DISPOSITION

9.  The matters raised in the Applicant’s Notice of Appeal and skeleton argument are all bare allegations without particulars. They do not constitute any valid grounds of appeal against the Judge’s decision.

10.  The Applicant has failed to identify or substantiate 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.