CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST No. 3255 of 2019
|
BETWEEN
|
| |
Bosu Monika |
Applicant |
| |
and |
|
| |
Torture Claims Appeal Board/ |
Putative |
| |
Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office |
Respondent |
| |
and |
|
| |
Director of Immigration |
Putative |
| |
|
Interested Party |
Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review
NOTIFICATION of the Judge’s decision (Ord. 53 r. 3)
Following;
Order by Deputy High Court Judge K.W. Lung:
Leave to apply for Judicial Review be refused.
Observations for the Applicant:
THE APPLICATION
1. The applicant applies for leave to apply for judicial review of the Decision dated 10 October 2019 of the Torture Claims Appeal Board (“the Board’s Decision).
2. The applicant requested an oral hearing. She appeared before the Court on 15 December 2025.
The applicant
3. The applicant is a national of Bangladesh. She was an illegal immigrant for the reason that she overstayed after her domestic helper service and was arrested. She lodged a non-refoulement claim on the basis that, if refouled, she will be harmed or killed by a man called Sardar, who had proposed to marry her, but she refused. He had threatened to kill her if she returns to Bangladesh. He had also caused nuisance to her family in Bangladesh.
4. Details of her claim are set out in the Board’s Decision. See hyperlink
https://legalref.judiciary.hk/doc/judg/html/vetted/other/en/2019/HCAL003255_2019_files/the_Board's_Decision.pdf
The Director’s Decision
5. The Director considered the applicant’s claim in relation to the following risks:
a. risk of torture under Part VIIC of the Immigration Ordinance, Cap. 115, (“the Ordinance”) (“Torture risk”);
b. risk of violation of the right to life under Article 2 of Section 8 of the Hong Kong Bill of Rights Ordinance, Cap. 383 (“HKBOR”) (“BOR 2 risk”);
c. risk of torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment (“CIDTP”) under Article 3 of Section 8 of the HKBOR (“BOR 3 risk”); and
d. risk of persecution by reference to the non-refoulement principle under Article 33 of the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees and its 1967 Protocol (“Refugee Convention”) (“Persecution risk”).
6. By way of the Notice of Decision dated 9 January 2019 (“Director’s Decision”), the Director dismissed the applicant’s claim because it was unsubstantiated.
The Board’s Decision
7. The applicant appealed the Director’s Decision to the Board. On 14 August 2019, the Board conducted an oral hearing for her. She had given oral evidence and answered the Board’s questions.
8. Having considered the evidence, the Board made the findings below.
(1) There were a lot of inconsistencies in her evidence. [49]-[55]
(2) Therefore, the Board found that her claims regarding Sardar’s interest in her and what transpired over the course of many years were unbelievable. [56]
(3) The Board found that the applicant was not a witness of truth and her story was incredible. [58]
(4) The Board considered there is not a real risk that she would face any of the applicable risks if she returns to Bangladesh. [69]
9. For the above reasons, the Board dismissed her appeal.
Application for leave to apply for judicial review of the Board’s Decision
10. The applicant has filed Form 86 dated 1 November 2019 for leave to apply for judicial review of the Board’s Decision.
11. The applicant has not raised any specific ground to challenge the Board’s Decision.
DISCUSSION
12. The role of this Court is supervisory, meaning that it ensures that the Board complied with the public law requirements in coming to the Board’s Decision on the applicant’s appeal. The Court will not usurp the fact-finding power vested in the Director and the Board. See TK v Michael C Jenkins Esq and Director of Immigration [2013] 1 HKC 526, §40 and Nupur Mst v Director of Immigration [2018] HKCA 524, §14 (1).
13. The Court will bear in mind that the Board’s Decisions should be examined with rigorous examination and anxious scrutiny. Before me, the applicant said she had told the Board her full story. She asked the Court to review the Board’s Decision.
14. In Re: Kartini [2019] HKCA 1022, 9 September 2019, the Court of Appeal held:
“13. (1) … …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.”
15. The applicant has raised no valid ground to challenge the Board’s Decision. There is no evidence that shows the Court should interfere with the Board’s Decision.
16. The applicant fails to show that she has any realistic prospect of success in her proposed judicial review of the Board’s Decision.
DISPOSITION
17. I refuse to grant leave to the applicant to apply for judicial review of the Board’s Decision. Accordingly, I dismiss her application.
Dated the 23rd day of December 2025
| |
(Annson CHEUNG)(Ms)
for Registrar, High Court
|
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
Notes for the Applicant:
If leave has been granted, the Applicant or the Applicant’s solicitors must:
|
|
|
|
|
a) serve on the respondent and such interested parties as may be directed by the Court the order granting leave and any directions given within 14 days after the leave was granted (Order 53, rule 4A);
b) issue the originating summons within 14 days after the grant of leave and serve it in accordance with Order 53, rule 5; and
c) supply to every other party copies of every affidavit which the Applicant proposes to use at the hearing, including the affidavit in support of the application for leave (Order 53, rule 6(5)).
|
|
Sent to the Applicant
on 23/12/2025
Bosu Monika
Applicant’s ref. no:
Nil. |
|
Sent to the Putative Respondent / the Putative Respondent’s solicitors / such Putative Interested Parties as may be directed by the Court / the Putative Interested Parties’ solicitors on 23/12/2025
Torture Claims Appeal Board/
Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office
Putative Respondent’s ref. no.:
USM 15370/19/1/243/B1934
Director of Immigration
Putative Interested Party’s ref. no.:
QA T/C 4944/18 (formerly RBCZ 10063/16)
Department of Justice,
Senior Assistant Law Officer
(Civil Law)
(Civil Litigation Unit 2) |
Form CALL-1