RASEL S M OBAIDUL HOQUE v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

CACV 1078/2025, [2026] HKCA 1428

On appeal from [2025] HKCFI 5325

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 1078 OF 2025

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 2064 OF 2020)

__________________________

__________________________

________________

JUDGMENT

________________

The Court:

1.  This is the Applicant’s appeal against the order of Deputy High Court Judge K.W. Lung (“the Judge”) dated 11 November 2025 (“the Order”) refusing to grant leave to apply for judicial review of the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office (“the Board”) dated 21 July 2020 (“the Board’s Decision”).  By that decision, the Board upheld the decision of the Director of Immigration (“Director”) dated 7 December 2018 rejecting the Applicant’s non-refoulement claim.

2.  The Applicant is a national of Bangladesh.  He lodged a non-refoulement claim with the Immigration Department on the basis that, if refouled, he would be harmed or killed by members of the Awami League (“AL”) for refusing to join them as he supported the Bangladesh Nationalist Party (“BNP”), a rival political party.  The Applicant’s non-refoulement claim was rejected by the Director, and his appeal against it was rejected by the Board.  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 11 November 2025 (“the Form CALL-1”).

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 Form CALL-1.

4.  By a Notice of Appeal filed on 25 November 2025, the Applicant sought to appeal the Judge’s decision to this court. For the grounds of appeal, the applicant stated that (sic):  

“1. The Honourable Judge failed to properly apply one or more limbs of this test, for instance, by dismissing credible new evidence without adequate reasoning.

2. In judicial review, the courts role is to review the lawfulness of the original decision (e.g. the Home Office) not to remake the decision, the Judge may have over-stepped by making their own findings of fact or conversely they may have been too deferential to the original decision maker when they should have intervened.”

5.  In the Applicant’s skeleton submission filed on 2 July 2026, his arguments can be summarised as follows :-

a.  the assessors’ view was that his claim was not established because his fear was too low but in fact the Applicant’s life is still in danger;

b.  the Board and/or the Director failed to take into account relevant considerations or took into account irrelevant considerations;

c.  the Board did not follow a high standard of fairness, did not inquire about his fear. The country of origin information clearly showed that no protection to the Applicant would be provided. The Judge was improper to confirm the Board’s Decision;

d.  the Applicant does not agree that he will be safe even if he relocates to the other parts of his country;

e.  the decision maker did not observe the Applicant’s fear well;

f.  the Applicant’s claim is not a private and personal matter;

g.  the Judge applied an incorrect test and relied on credibility findings as conclusive;

h.  the Board acted outside the scope of the Immigration Ordinance/USM by misinterpreting statutory thresholds or applying an incorrect legal test; and

i.  the Applicant also made further challenges such as, errors of law, breach of natural justice/procedural unfairness, irrationality/Wednesbury unreasonableness, error in fact-finding, failure to consider material evidence, misapplication of burden and standard of proof, failure to consider country information or changed circumstances, proportionality/compatibility with constitutional rights) but he did not pinpoint how these heads of challenge related to, or arose, in his case.

6.  The appeal was heard on 11 August 2026.  The Applicant attended the hearing in person with the assistance of a Bengali interpreter and basically repeated his case. 

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 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.

9.  In the present case, the Judge found no error of law or procedural unfairness or irrationality in the decision of the Board. It is incumbent on the applicant to point out the Judge’s errors with sufficient particulars and specifics. In our view, the matters set out in the applicant’s notice of appeal and written submissions failed to identify any error on the part of the Judge. Mere assertions are not enough. They do not constitute any viable grounds of appeal and lack substance. We see no basis to interfere with the Judge’s decision.

10.  For the above reasons, the applicant’s appeal is devoid of merits. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal.