RE HOSSEN RIYAJ

CACV 237/2025, [2025] HKCA 1127

On Appeal From [2025] HKCFI 1549

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 237 OF 2025

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 3861 OF 2019)

_______________

_______________

J U D G M E N T

_______________

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

1.  This is the applicant’s appeal against the order of Deputy High Court Judge (Non-refoulement Claims) Martin Wong (“the Judge”) dated 16 April 2025 ([2025] HKCFI 1549) (“the Leave Decision”) refusing his application for leave to apply for judicial review (“the Leave Application”) against  the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office (“the Board”) dated 19 December 2019 (“the Board’s Decision”), whereby the Board dismissed his appeal against the decision of the Director of Immigration (“the Director”) dated 19 July 2018, refusing his non-refoulement claim.

2.  The applicant’s background, the basis of his claim and arguments advanced before the Board as well as the Board’s reasons for rejecting his appeal are all set out in the Board’s Decision: see [3] of the Leave Decision.  The Judge’s reasons for refusing the Leave Application are also set out at [4] ‑ [9] of the Leave Decision.  We will not repeat those details herein.

3.  By the Notice of Appeal filed on 28 April 2025, the applicant stated:

“The Leave to apply for Judicial Review be dismissed. I am not agree with the decision of the Court of First Instance. This decision make me liable to remove from Hong Kong to my home country where my life is no safe. My enemies are still looking for me. If I return back to my country I will be killed by my enemies.” (sic)

4.  The applicant lodged written submissions on 6 November 2025.  In those submissions, he again reiterated that there would be a deadly risk of his life if refouled and that he would be killed and tortured by his enemies.  He further asserted that the Judge failed to apply the principles of rationality, procedural fairness and high standards of fairness and also failed to analyse his claims properly.  He further complained that the Board failed to give him sufficient chance to arrange the relevant evidence and failed to evaluate whether a consistent pattern of gross and mass violation of human rights existed in his home country or whether state protection existed in his home country.

5.  We heard the appeal on 9 December 2025.  A Bengali interpreter was present to provide language assistance.  During the hearing, he confirmed that he had nothing to add to his written materials.

DISCUSSION

6.  The relevant legal principles governing appeals in non‑refoulement cases are set out in Nupur Mst v Director of Immigration [2018] HKCA 524 at [14].

7.  In particular, in an appeal against refusal of leave to apply for judicial review in non-refoulement cases, 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.  The Court’s role is not to examine the decision maker’s decision afresh as if it were a fresh application for judicial review.  See Nupur Mst v Director of Immigration [2018] HKCA 524 at [14(6)].

8.  In light of the above, it is thus incumbent on the applicant in this appeal to point out the errors in the Leave Decision with sufficient particulars and specifics.

9.  However, nowhere in his Notice of Appeal or written submissions did the applicant identify any error with specific particulars committed by the Judge.  His assertions are all general, bare and vague allegations unsupported by specific particulars or evidence.  Clearly, his assertions do not constitute viable grounds of appeal and must fail.

10.  In any event, his arguments are devoid of merit.  General and bare assertions of his fear if refouled do not constitute valid grounds of appeal: Re Saldua Dorothy Trifalgar [2022] HKCA 627 at [6].  As noted by the Judge at [4] of the Leave Decision, the assessment of evidence, Country of Origin materials (“COI”) and risk of harm, state protection and viability of internal relocation are primarily within the province of the Board (and the Director)  as primary decision makers.  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.  As observed by the Judge at [6] ‑ [7], the Board had thoroughly considered his claim and situation in his home country including state protection with the relevant materials and COI before him.  The applicant also had ample opportunities to present his case before the Board and the Judge.  The Judge was clearly correct in rejecting his application.  We see no basis to interfere with the Leave Decision.

11.  For the above reasons, the applicant’s appeal against the Leave Decision has no merit and is dismissed.