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

CACV 940/2025, [2026] HKCA 23

On Appeal From [2025] HKCFI 4954

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 940 OF 2025

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO. 1726 OF 2020)

____________________

________________

JUDGMENT

________________

Hon Anthony Chan JA (giving the Judgment of the Court):

1.  This is the Applicant’s appeal against the order (“Dismissal Order”) of Deputy High Court Judge (Non-refoulement Claims) Vincent Lung (“Judge”) dated 23 October 2025 by which his application for leave to apply for judicial review (“Leave Application”) against the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board (“Board”) dated 25 August 2020 (“Board’s Decision”) was dismissed. By that decision, the Board upheld the decision of the Director of Immigration (“Director”) to reject the Applicant’s non-refoulement claim.

2.  The Applicant is a national of Bangladesh.  The basis of his non-refoulement claim had been set out in detail in the Board’s Decision, which may be viewed online via the hyperlink contained in footnote 1 of the CALL-1 Form.  In gist, the Applicant claims that if he returns home, he would be attacked by members of the Awami League due to his support for Jamaat-e-Islami.

3.  In [5] to [12] of the CALL-1 Form, the Judge gave detailed reasons for refusing the Leave Application.

4.  By a Notice of Appeal filed on 28 October 2025, the Applicant appeals against the Judge’s decision.  The Applicant contends as his grounds of appeal that:

“I do not agree with the decision of the Court of First Instance. I have severe problem in my home country but the decision makers did not scrutinize my problem. If I return there I will be killed by my enemies.”

5.  The appeal was scheduled to be heard on 8 January 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 27 November 2025 (“Directions”).  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.  Having considered the documents before us, we consider that it is appropriate to deal with the Applicant’s appeal on paper without an oral hearing.

6.  The general approach of this Court in dealing with appeals in non-refoulement cases has been set out in Nupur Mst v Director of Immigration [2018] HKCA 524 at [14].  In particular, in an appeal against refusal of leave to apply for judicial review in non-refoulement cases, this Court 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.  This Court’s role is not to examine the Board’s decision afresh as if it is a fresh application for judicial review (see Nupur Mst at [14(6)]).

7.  Further, 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 is an error of law or procedural unfairness or irrationality in the decision of the Board: Re Kartini [2019] HKCA 1022 at [13].

8.  In the Notice of Appeal, the Applicant simply stated that he did not agree with the Dismissal Order but has failed to identify any error committed by the Judge.  His contention that the decision makers failed to scrutinize his problem is not supported by any particulars about the alleged failure or problem.  He has therefore failed to advance any viable ground of appeal. 

9.  On 19 January 2026, in breach of the Directions, the Applicant lodged his skeleton argument.  Pursuant to para 3(3) of the Directions, such document cannot be lodged without the leave of the Court (no leave was obtained by the Applicant).  Para 3(3) further provided that such document lodged in non-compliance will not be considered. 

10.  In any event, the skeleton argument contains what may be described as standardised document of this kind which has repeatedly been seen in non-refoulment cases.  It contains nothing other than generalised allegations, eg, the Judge was wrong as a matter of law for not having applied the principle of irrationality to the decisions of the Director and the Board.  The allegations are devoid of proper particulars and do not assist the Applicant. 

11.  In the premises, the appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs.