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

CACV 691/2025, [2026] HKCA 807

On appeal from [2025] HKCFI 3826

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 691 OF 2025

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 2828 OF 2019)

__________________________

BETWEEN

__________________________

________________

JUDGMENT

________________

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]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 19 September 2019 (“the Board’s Decision”) whereby the Board dismissed his appeal against the decision of the Director of Immigration (“the Director”) dated 11 May 2018 (“the Director’s Decision”).

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 Nationalist Party (“BNP”) and refusal to join the AL. The applicant’s non-refoulement claim was rejected by the Director, and his appeal against it was rejected by the Board. A summary of the applicant’s process before the Director and the Board can be found under paragraphs [4] – [15] of the Form CALL-1 dated 29 August 2025 (“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 4 September 2025, the applicant sought to appeal the Judge’s decision to this court. For the grounds of appeal, the applicant stated that (sic) “1. Failed to proper observation into the Country of Origin condition, that the Authority of my country would not able to protect me, due to political instability and lack of law and justice. I would be face genuine risk upon refoulement. 2. Failed to proper assessment by the TCAB and the Director under BOR2 and BOR 3 risk.”

5.  The appeal was scheduled to be heard on 12 March 2026. The applicant has failed to lodge any skeleton argument in support of his appeal in accordance with the directions given by the Registrar of Civil Appeals on 16 January 2026. Accordingly, the applicant is deemed to have waived his right to have an oral hearing of the appeal, and elected to have the appeal disposed of on paper. The applicant was informed of the same by the court’s letter dated 12 February 2026.

DISCUSSION & DISPOSITION

6.  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)).

7.  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.

8.  In the present case, the Judge found no error of law or procedural unfairness or irrationality in the decision of the Board. The mere assertions as stated in the grounds of appeal, which were not substantiated, do not constitute any viable grounds of appeal against the Judge’s decision.

9.  For the above reasons, the applicant’s appeal is devoid of merits. We dismiss it accordingly.