ISLAM SAFIKUL v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

CACV 406/2025, [2026] HKCA 895

On Appeal From HKCFI 2347

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 406 OF 2025

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 2674 OF 2019)

____________

____________

_________________

J U D G M E N T

_________________

Hon G Lam JA (giving the Judgment of the Court):

Introduction

1.  This is an appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge To (“Judge”) on 10 June 2025 refusing to grant leave to the applicant to apply for judicial review against the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board/adjudicator of the Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office (“Board”) dated 11 September 2019. In that decision, the Board upheld the decision of the Director of Immigration (“Director”) dated 22 February 2018 rejecting the applicant’s non-refoulement claim.

Background

2.  The applicant is a national of Bangladesh born in 1980. His claim was made on the basis that if he returned to Bangladesh, members of a rival political party would harm or kill him due to political differences and the Bangladeshi police would arrest him for crimes he was falsely accused of. The details of the applicant’s background, the basis of his claim and the Board’s reasons for rejecting his appeal are set out in [4] – [17] of the Form CALL-1. The Judge has set out the grounds advanced by the applicant in support of the application and his reasons for refusal of the application: see [19] – [30] of the Form CALL-1.

Appeal to this Court

3.  On 16 June 2025, the applicant filed his Notice of Appeal against the Judge’s decision. His stated grounds of appeal were, essentially, that the Judge’s decision was unfair, and that, if refouled, he would be killed by his enemies.

4.  On 17 December 2025, however, the applicant filed a Request for Dismissal of Appeal. As he has requested for the dismissal of his own appeal, we shall dispose of it on the basis of the available documents and materials.

Discussion

5.  Although the applicant has made a written request for the dismissal of his appeal, we shall nevertheless briefly discuss the merits of his appeal.

6.  In assessing the merits of the appeal, we shall have regard to the legal principles which this Court has adopted in dealing with appeals in non-refoulement cases: see Nupur Mst v Director of Immigration [2018] HKCA 524 at [14]; Re Md Shohel Sheak [2018] HKCA 714 at [13]; and Re Limbu Birkhaman [2019] HKCA 50 at [11]. In particular, the role of the Court in a judicial review is not to provide a further avenue of appeal. 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. In the determination of an appeal against the refusal of leave by the Court of First Instance, the Court of Appeal will 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. It is not the role of this Court to examine the decision of the Board afresh as if the appeal were a fresh application for judicial review.

7.  In the present case, the Board found that there was no real risk of harm upon refoulement as alleged, because his dispute with the Bangladesh Awami League was a private one without state involvement, the actual or perceived harm inflicted on the applicant had not attained the minimum level of severity, state protection would be available, and internal relocation to anywhere other than the applicant’s home state would be viable and not unduly harsh for him. These are findings of fact open to the Board based on the evidence it received and for the reasons it gave. The applicant has failed to show any reasonably arguable public law error in relation to the Board’s decision.

8.  Equally, the applicant has not been able to demonstrate any error in the decision of the Judge or advance any viable ground of appeal against the Judge’s decision. We are not satisfied that there is any error in the Judge’s decision.

9.  Pursuant to the applicant’s request, and for these reasons, the appeal is dismissed.