KARIM MD REJAUL v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD

CACV 501/2026, [2026] HKCA 1226

On Appeal From [2026] HKCFI 2614

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 501 OF 2026

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 764 OF 2021)

________________________

________________________

________________________

JUDGMENT

________________________

Hon Chow JA (giving the Judgment of the Court):

1.  This is the Applicant’s appeal against the order of Deputy High Court Judge Bruno Chan (“the Judge”) dated 7 May 2026 (“the Order”) refusing to grant leave to the Applicant to apply for judicial review of the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office (“the Board”) dated 17 May 2021 (“the Board’s Decision”), whereby the Board dismissed the Applicant’s appeal against the decision of the Director of Immigration (“the Director”) dated 6 March 2020.

2.  The Applicant alleges that, if refouled to Bangladesh, he will be harmed or killed by some supporters of the Awami League (“AL”) because he was a member of another political party, the Bangladesh Nationalist Party, and he had seriously injured an AL member in 2010 when they were arguing about politics with each other[1]. The Applicant’s background, the basis and procedural history of his claim, the findings of the Board and its reasons for dismissing his appeal against the Director’s decision have been set out in detail in the Board’s Decision, and summarised by the Judge in the Judge’s decision (see §§1-16 of the CALL-1 Form).  We do not propose to repeat them here.

3.  The Judge’s reasons for dismissing the Applicant’s leave application are set out at §§17-19 of the CALL-1 Form.  In gist, the Judge found that the bare assertion raised by the Applicant that the Board’s Decision was unreasonable did not give rise to any reasonably arguable ground of review of the Board’s Decision.  The Judge further held that there was no error of law or procedural unfairness in the decisions of the Director or the Board, nor any failure by them to apply high standards of fairness in assessing the Applicant’s claim.

THIS APPEAL

4.  In his Notice of Appeal filed on 18 May 2026, the Applicant states the following:

“1. Procedural impropriety: The TCAB and the Director failed to consider the fact in my claim. My fear is genuine and real, it’s not a private, it’s a political dispute against the government who ruled in my country.

2. Error/misdirection in law: Failure to consider my supporting documents and the applicable grounds under BOR 2 and BOR 3 risk.” [sic]

5.  In his written submissions lodged on 28 May 2026, the Applicant contends essentially that the Judge, the Board and/or the Director failed to properly consider the risk of harm that he would face upon refoulement, and erred in disbelieving his account of events and in failing to assess his claim in accordance with the correct legal test, standard and principles. His contentions may be summarised as follows:

(1)  The Board and the Director failed to take into account relevant considerations or took into account irrelevant considerations, and failed to give proper weight to relevant considerations and materials in assessing his claim.  In particular, they failed to give due regard to (i) the threat that he would face from his enemies if refouled, (ii) the country of origin information showing that state protection would not be available to him in his home country, (iii) the fact that his claimed fear of harm was genuine, and (iv) the fact that his dispute with his enemies was not private or personal[2].

(2)  The judge erred in holding that he can safely relocate to other part(s) of his home country[3].

(3)  The Judge did not observe his fear properly[4].

(4)  The Judge erred in applying an incorrect test in determining his non-refoulement claim, and treating “credibility findings as conclusively determinative rather than part of a holistic risk assessment”[5].

(5)  The Board erred in misinterpreting statutory thresholds, applying an incorrect legal test, or failing to apply relevant international law principles[6].

(6)  The Board failed to give adequate opportunity to the Applicant to present evidence, failed to consider submissions, or relied on new material without notice[7].

(7)  The Board’s conclusions were not supported by any evidence, or were Wednesbury unreasonable[8].

(8)  The Board ignored credible documentary or witness evidence, mischaracterised testimony, or relied on irrelevant facts[9].

(9)  The Board shifted the burden improperly to the Applicant and imposed an unduly high standard[10].

(10)  The Board failed to consider up-to-date country information, or give proper weight to corroborative reports[11].

(11)  The Board’s conclusions were in conflict with the Basic Law or his rights under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights[12].

6.  The Applicant did not appear at the hearing of the present appeal.

DISCUSSION

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.  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 are errors of law or procedural unfairness or irrationality in the decision of the Board: Re Kartini [2019] HKCA 1022, at §13.  No such error of law or procedural unfairness or irrationality in the decision of the Board is shown in the present case.

9.  The matters raised in the Applicant’s Notice of Appeal and submissions are either new points which were not raised in the application below, or are general assertions without particulars.  They are mostly directed at the decisions of the Board and the Director.  No good ground has been shown which would justify permitting the Applicant to rely on new points or grounds which were not advanced in the proceedings below.  The complaints raised by the Applicant do not constitute valid grounds of appeal against the Order.

10.  The Applicant’s appeal has no merit, and is dismissed.

[1] See §32 of the Board’s Decision.

[2] See §§2, 3(a) and 3(c) of the Applicant’s written submissions.

[3] See §3(b) of the Applicant’s written submissions.

[4] See §4 of the Applicant’s written submissions.

[5] See §§5 and 6 of the Applicant’s written submissions.

[6] See §§7 and 8 of the Applicant’s written submissions.

[7] See §9 of the Applicant’s written submissions.

[8] See §10 of the Applicant’s written submissions.

[9] See §11 of the Applicant’s written submissions.

[10] See §12 of the Applicant’s written submissions.

[11] See §13 of the Applicant’s written submissions.

[12] See §14 of the Applicant’s written submissions.