|
CACV 1144/2025, [2026] HKCA 1429
On appeal from [2025] HKCFI 5495
IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
COURT OF APPEAL
CIVIL APPEAL NO 1144 OF 2025
(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 2192 OF 2020)
__________________________
|
BETWEEN
|
| |
HAFIJUR RAHMAN |
Applicant |
| |
and |
|
| |
TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD/ NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS
PETITION OFFICE |
Putative Respondent |
| |
and |
|
| |
DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION |
Putative Interested Party |
__________________________
| Before: |
Hon Poon CJHC and Ng J in Court |
| Date of Hearing: |
11 August 2026 |
| Date of Judgment: |
2 September 2026 |
________________
JUDGMENT
________________
The Court:
1. This is the Applicant’s appeal against the order of Deputy
High Court Judge Levy (“the Judge”) dated 21 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 28 August 2020 (“the Board’s BOR 2 Decision”). By that decision, the Board upheld the
decision dated 11 July 2017 of the Director of Immigration (“Director”) dismissing the Applicant’s
non-refoulement claim in respect of BOR 2 Risk.
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 Mashuk and his associates who
were associated with the Bangladesh Nationalist Party (“BNP”) for refusing to pay extortion money to them.
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 BOR 2 Decision, the hyperlink to which can be found in the Form CALL-1 dated 21
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 4 December 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 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.”
5. In the skeleton submission filed on 8 July 2026, the
Applicant cited a number of cases and made generic submissions on the general principles of law related to
non-refoulement claims, without advancing any argument against the Judge’s decision as such.
6. The appeal was heard on 11 August 2026. The Applicant
attended the hearing in person with the assistance of a Bengali interpreter and told this court:
“The government in Bangladesh has changed and right now the situation is not under
control. The
law enforcement department are not working properly… I can’t go back to my country yet.”
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. The matters raised in the Applicant’s Notice of Appeal and skeleton
submission are all bare allegations without particulars. They do not constitute any valid grounds of
appeal against the Judge’s decision.
10. The Applicant has failed to identify or substantiate any
error in the Judge’s decision refusing to grant leave to apply for judicial review, or raise any viable ground
of appeal against the Order.
11. The Applicant’s appeal has no merit, and is dismissed.
(Jeremy Poon)
Chief Judge of the
High Court |
(Peter Ng)
Judge of the Court
of First Instance |
The Applicant, unrepresented, acted in person
|