MAKHON MD MAHADI HASAN v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

CACV 342/2026, [2026] HKCA 1014

On Appeal From [2026] HKCFI 1222

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 342OF 2026

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO. 37 OF 2022)

____________________

________________

JUDGMENT

________________

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

Introduction

1.  This is the Applicant’s appeal against the order of Deputy High Court Judge (Non-refoulement Claims) Sabrina Ho (“Judge”) dated 23 March 2026 (“Order”) refusing his application for leave to apply for judicial review of the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office (“Board”) dated 10 November 2021 (“Board’s Decision”) by which the Board upheld the decision of the Director of Immigration (“Director”) rejecting the Applicant’s non-refoulement claim.

Background

2.  The Applicant is a national of Bangladesh.  On 27 June 2020, the Applicant lodged a non-refoulement claim on the basis that, if refouled, he would be harmed or killed by the people from Awami League (“AL”) and Chhatra League because he was a leader of the student wing of the Bangladesh National Party (“BNP”) at his college.  The Applicant’s claim was rejected by the Director on 23 March 2021, and the appeal against the Director’s decision was rejected by the Board on 10 November 2021. 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, the hyperlink to which can be found in the Form CALL-1 dated 23 March 2026, [5]. 

3.  The Applicant’s application for leave to apply for judicial review was refused by the Judge on 23 March 2026.  Details of the Judge’s reasons for refusing to grant leave can be found in the Form CALL-1, [6] to [10].

Grounds of Appeal

4.  In the Notice of Appeal filed on 2 April 2026, the Applicant stated the following :

“I do not agree with the decision of the Court of First Instance. The court did not scrutinize my claim properly. Despite my problem in my home country is very severe the court of First Instance and the Torture claims Appeal Board rejected my claim. The decision makers considered my claim as simply. If I return to my country I will be killed by my enemies.”

5.  In the skeleton argument filed on 18 May 2026, apart from repeating his claim, the Applicant submits that :

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

(2)     The Judge failed to apply the principles of irrationality and procedural fairness to the decisions of the Director and the Board.

(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.

(4)     The Judge reviewed his torture claim lightly.

(5)     The Judge failed to exercise greater care despite his problems in his home country and the proof submitted for his claim.

(6)     The Judge failed to analyse his claim properly.

(7)     The Judge did not accept what had been refused by the Director and the Board.

(8)     The Board failed to give him sufficient chance to arrange relevant evidence for his claim and appeal.

(9)     The Board relied significantly on source of news which was not officially recognised or was simply hearsay.

(10)     The Board failed to evaluate and make a finding of fact as to whether a consistent pattern of gross and mass violation of human rights exists in his home country.

(11)     The Board failed to analyse and assess whether state protection exists in his home country, and misdirected itself as to the extended meaning of state protection.

6.  At the hearing of this appeal, the Applicant said that the local government at home is run by the Jamaat-e-Islami party, and it is taking revenge on the AL and the BNP.  He thinks that it is extremely risky for him to return to Bangladesh.  His enemies had filed a legal action against him.  They are threatening his family and do not want the Applicant to return so that they can take his property. 

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 Director and the Board.  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. 

Discussion and Disposition

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

10.  The Applicant has failed to properly identify or show 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.  As regards the matters raised at the hearing, the Applicant had made similar allegations in his non-refoulement claim about being targeted by rival political parties.  The Board took the view that, inter alia, the Applicant could have sought state protection and internal relocation was an option available to him.  The Applicant did not previously make any claim about property dispute with any enemy.  He is not entitled to raise any fresh ground on appeal which was not advanced in his application below. 

12.  The Applicant’s appeal has no merit, and is dismissed with no order as to costs.