MIA SUJON v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

CACV 669/2025, [2026] HKCA 544

On appeal from [2025] HKCFI 3822

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 669 OF 2025

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 2832 OF 2019)

__________________________

__________________________

________________

J U D G M E N T

________________

The Court:

INTRODUCTION

1.  This is the applicant’s appeal against the order of Deputy High Court Judge Levy (“the Judge”) dated 29 August 2025[1](“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 20 September 2019 (“the Board’s Decision”) whereby the Board dismissed his appeals against the decisions of the Director of Immigration (“the Director”) dated 19 May 2016 and 5 July 2017 (“the Director’s Decisions”).

BACKGROUND

2.  The applicant is a national of Bangladesh. He lodged a non-refoulement claim with the Immigration Department on the basis that, if refouled, he would be harmed or killed by members and/or supporters of the Awami League (“AL”) due to his support for the rival Bangladesh Jamaat-e-Islami (“JeI”) and refusal to join. The applicant’s non-refoulement claim was rejected by the Director, and his appeal against them were rejected by the Board. A summary of the applicant’s process before the Director and the Board can be found under paragraphs [3] – [11] of the Form CALL-1.

3.  The applicant’s application for leave to apply for judicial review was refused by the Judge and details of the Judge’s reasons for refusing to grant leave can be found in the Form CALL-1.

GROUNDS OF APPEAL

4.  By a notice of appeal filed on 2 September 2025, the applicant sought to appeal the Judge’s decision to this court. For the grounds of appeal, the applicant stated that (sic) “The leave to apply for Judicial Review be refused. I do not agree with the decision of the Court of First Instance, because the learned Judge did not consider my problem properly and this decision is unfair.”

5.  In the applicant’s skeleton submissions lodged on 23 January 2026, he reiterated his claim and that his life would be at risk if refouled and that he would be tortured or killed his enemies. He asserted that :-

a.  the Judge failed to apply the principles of rationality, procedural unfairness and high standards of fairness, and also failed to analyse his claims properly;

b.  the Board failed to give him sufficient chance to arrange for the relevant evidence and failed to evaluate whether a consistent pattern of gross and mass violation of human rights in his home country;

c.  the Board relied on source of news which is not officially recognised or was simply hearsay;

d.  the Board failed to analyse and assess the issue of state protection in his home country.

6.  At the hearing on 12 March 2026, the applicant confirmed that he has nothing further to add to his written submissions.

DISCUSSION & DISPOSITION

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.

9.  In the present case, the Judge found no error of law or procedural unfairness or irrationality in the decision of the Board. It is incumbent on the applicant to point out the Judge's errors with sufficient particulars and specifics. In our view, the matters set out in the applicant’s notice of appeal and written submissions failed to identify any error on the part of the Judge. Mere assertions are not enough. They do not constitute any viable grounds of appeal and lack substance. We see no basis to interfere with the Judge’s decision.

10.  For the above reasons, the applicant’s appeal is devoid of merits. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal.