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

HCAL 1937/2020

[2025] HKCFI 4576

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST No. 1937 of 2020

Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review
NOTIFICATION of the Judge’s decision (Ord. 53 r. 3)

Following;

	consideration of the documents only;            or
	consideration of the documents and the Applicant being absent in open court;

The application for leave to apply for judicial review be dismissed.

Observations for the Applicant:

Introduction

1.  By a Form 86 filed on 28 September 2020 (the “Form 86”), the Applicant applied for leave to apply for judicial review of a decision by the Torture Claims Appeal Board (the “TCAB”) dated 27 August 2020 (the “TCAB Decision”), which affirmed a decision by the Director of Immigration (the “DOI”) dated 28 January 2019 in refusing the Applicant’s non‑refoulement protection claim. He named the TCAB as the proposed respondent and the DOI as an interested party.

2.  The Applicant requested for a hearing but he did not attend the scheduled hearing on 10 September 2025. From the court record, the Notice of Hearing was sent to him on 26 August 2025 at an address that was updated through the Immigration Department on 23 August 2025. I see no reason why I should not proceed to deal with this application on paper despite his absence.

Background

3.  The Applicant is a national of Bangladesh. He seeks non-refoulement protection on the basis that he would be harmed or killed by people of a rival political party if he was returned. His personal background, the relevant facts and relevant procedural history have been sufficiently set out in the TCAB Decision, which can be assessed through a hyperlink[1], and I shall not repeat the same herein.

Discussion

4.  In a judicial review, this court does not provide a further avenue of appeal. Though in non-refoulement case an enhanced standard in scrutinizing the decision of the TCAB is required given the seriousness of the issue at hand, this court should not usurp the role of the TCAB, which together with the DOI are the primary decision-makers. This 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 TCAB (Nupur Mst v Director of Immigration [2018] HKCA 524, [14(1)]). There must be a reasonably arguable claim with a realistic prospect of success before leave for judicial review will be granted (Peter Po Fun Chan v Winnie Cheung & Anor (2007) 10 HKCFAR 676).

5.  In his affirmation filed in support of this application, the Applicant did not point to any error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality of the TCAB Decision.

6.  Looking at the TCAB Decision, the TCAB considered the Applicant’s case and evidence, and all materials placed before it [19-37]. The TCAB also bore in mind the correct principles in respect of each of the four applicable grounds under the USM [8-18].

7.  After assessing the Applicant’s credibility [38] and thoroughly analysing all of the above, the TCAB came to the conclusion that none of the grounds was made out [39-51].

8.  I therefore do not see any error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the TCAB Decision, despite rigorous examination and anxious scrutiny.

Conclusion

9.  For the above reasons, I am not satisfied that this court should intervene by way of judicial review. I therefore dismiss the application.

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

Form CALL-1