SUDEB MONDOL v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

CACV 506/2025, [2026] HKCA 768

On appeal from [2025] HKCFI 2245

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 506 OF 2025

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 3026 OF 2019)

__________________________

BETWEEN

__________________________

________________

JUDGMENT

________________

The Court:

Introduction

1.  This is the applicant’s appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge KW Lung (“the Judge”) given in the judgment (the “Judgment”) dated 9 July 2025,[1] refusing his application for leave to apply for judicial review against the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board (the “Board”) dated 30 September 2019 (the “Board’s Decision”) whereby the Board dismissed his appeal against the decisions of the Director of Immigration (the “Director”) dated 22 July 2016 and 6 September 2017 (the “Director’s Decisions”).

The applicant’s claim and the Judge’s decision

2.  The applicant is a national of Bangladesh. In his non-refoulement claim form filed with the Immigration Department, he lodged a claim on the basis that, if refouled, he would be harmed or killed by his girlfriend’s brothers as they did not accept his relationship with the girlfriend because they were Muslims and the applicant was a Hindu. The applicant’s non-refoulement claim was rejected by the Director’s Decisions, and his appeal against it was rejected by the Board on 30 September 2019. A summary of the applicant’s background and his process before the Director and the Board can be found under §3 – §12 of the Judgment.

3.  The applicant’s application for leave to apply for judicial review was refused by the Judge and details of the Judge’s reasons for refusing to grant leave can be found in the Judgment.

The appeal

4.  By a notice of appeal filed on 16 July 2025, the applicant sought to appeal the Judge’s decision to this court. For the grounds of appeal, the applicant stated that (sic) “the grounds of this appeal are that the Applicant will face hardship if he is to return back to his home country and that the Torture Claims Appeal Board has significantly relied on the source of news which is not officially recognized, or it is simply hearsay. They have also relied on some cases which are outdated considering the dramatic changes. The lack of credible source of information has resulted in them making groundless speculations.”, but without providing further particulars or elaboration.

5.  The appeal was scheduled to be heard on 10 February 2026. However, the applicant has failed to lodge any skeleton argument in support of his appeal on or before 13 January 2026 in accordance with the directions given by the Registrar of Civil Appeals on 18 December 2025. 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. The applicant was informed of the same by the court’s letter dated 16 January 2026.

Our reasons for decision

6.  The Court of Appeal’s general approach in dealing with appeals in non-refoulement cases is 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, 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 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. In the present case, the Judge found no such error of law or procedural unfairness or irrationality in the decision of the Board. Apart from the mere assertions as stated in his grounds of appeal, which were not substantiated with any specific information or elaboration as to how they apply to his present appeal, the applicant has failed to identify any error on the part of the Judge. Absent any viable ground of appeal, the applicant’s appeal is devoid of merits. We dismiss it accordingly.