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

HCAL 941/2022

[2026] HKCFI 4154

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST No 941 of 2022

Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review

NOTIFICATION of the Judge’s decision (Ord 53 r 3)

Following;

	consideration of documents only;          or
	consideration of the documents and oral submissions by the Applicant in open court;

The application for leave to apply for judicial review be dismissed.

Observations for the Applicant:

Introduction

1.  By Form 86 dated 15 September 2022 (“Form 86”), the Applicant seeks leave to apply for judicial review (“Leave Application”) against the Decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-Refoulement Claims Petition Office (“Board”) dated 6 September 2022 (“Board’s Decision”), which affirmed the Decision of the Director of Immigration (“Director”) dated 25 January 2022.

2.  An oral hearing, which was requested by the Applicant, took place before me on 27 February 2026. The Applicant attended in person.

3.  At the hearing, the Applicant submitted to the Court that torture and prosecution still continue in Bangladesh against members and supporters of the opposition parties, and that if she were refouled, her life would be at risk.

Background

4.  The Applicant is from Bangladesh. Her background and the basis of her application for non-refoulement were set out in detail in the Board’s Decision at this hyperlink.[1]  I will not repeat them here. Unless otherwise specified, I adopt the abbreviations in the Board’s Decision.

5.  In short, the Applicant claimed to be in fear of being harmed by one Mr M, who is her late father’s business partner and by Islam followers as she is in the religious minority (Hindu).

Discussion

6.  Leave application is meant to be a filtering process and the court is not expected to give elaborate reasons for its decision: Re Zunariyah [2018] HKCA 14 at §23. I therefore set out below brief reasons for my decision, which I have reached upon considering all the materials before me.

7.  The court’s role in judicial review is not to provide a further avenue of appeal. The primary decision makers are the Director and the Board. While the court adopts in non-refoulement cases an enhanced standard in scrutinising the decision of the Board due to the seriousness of the issue at hand, it should not usurp the role of the Board. Assessment of evidence and COI materials and 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: Nupur Mst v Director of Immigration [2018] HKCA 524 at §14(1). There must be a reasonably arguable case, namely one which enjoys a realistic prospect of success, before leave for judicial review will be granted: Peter Po Fun Chan v Winnie Cheung (2007) 10 HKCFAR 676 at §§14-17.

8.  In a proper Form 86, an applicant is required to state the grounds of judicial review clearly and succinctly: Ho Loy v Director of Environmental Protection (HCAL 21/2015, 22 December 2016) at §142. He or she is also under a duty to make full and frank disclosure of material facts: Kan Hung Cheung v The Director of Immigration [2008] HKC 323 at §§14-17.

9.  In the Leave Application, the Applicant has not stated any ground of judicial review. She has not identified any error of law or procedural unfairness or irrationality in the Board’s Decision to demonstrate a reasonably arguable case.

10.  In any event, I have reviewed the Board’s Decision and I do not detect any error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality. The Board assessed the evidence in detail and gave adequate reasons for its decision. In particular:

(1)  The Board did not consider that the Applicant faced a real risk of harm if refouled. Insofar as Mr M is concerned, the Applicant’s evidence was that Mr M attacked and killed her father and mother, based on the account of her neighbour Ms A: §28. The Board found that despite the purported threats to Ms A for looking after the Applicant’s siblings, no harm had been inflicted on Ms A, the Applicant’s husband or siblings: §37.

(2)  As to the risk of harm from Islam followers, the Board noted incidents of violence between Hindus and Muslims in the COI, but observed that there was only one incident in the Applicant’s division in the 2022 protests. The Applicant accepted that her division was okay (although she believed that the situation of the country was bad): §38.

(3)  Given the finding above (that the Applicant would not face a real risk of harm if refouled) the Board did not consider it necessary to make findings in relation to internal relocation, although it did observe that the threat to the Applicant was localised (§51), and referred to the alternative location of Dhaka where there are Hindus living (§43).

11.  In the premises, I conclude that the Applicant’s intended challenge against the Board’s Decision is not reasonably arguable.

Conclusion

12.  I make an order that the Leave Application be dismissed.

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

Form CALL-1